Eliminate implicit reexports #6570
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This makes mypy check clean with the proposed --no-implicit-reexports flag from PR #6562. Some of the implicit reexports that were depended on were clearly intended (type_visitor) and so made explicit, while some were clearly unintended (Optional from mypy.types!) and fixed. Probably worth landing this whichever way we decide on #6562, but I think this PR is an argument in favor.
JukkaL
approved these changes
Mar 20, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This makes mypy check clean with the proposed --no-implicit-reexports
flag from PR #6562.
Some of the implicit reexports that were depended on were clearly
intended (type_visitor) and so made explicit, while some were clearly
unintended (Optional from mypy.types!) and fixed.
Probably worth landing this whichever way we decide on #6562, but I
think this PR is an argument in favor.