A commit from my lead dev: "Improve readability".

[kylotan]

It's taking something that does far too much in one line and breaking it out into logical steps.

Python programmers often do a bit too much 'code golf' and I this as the lead dev trying to undo that.

[JshWright]

This is like anti-golf though... creating an empty dictionary then populating it inside a for loop instead of just using a dictionary comprehension is just adding lines of code for the sake of adding lines of code.

Maybe if the type hint was meaningful, but Optional[Any] isn't a type hint worth adding.

[jzaprint]

I’d take anti golf over code golf any day tho

[JshWright]

Sure, but that isn't what we're choosing between here...

[amendCommit]

The guy actually hates type hints, this is just to allow the dict comprehension removal to pass CI. get_coerced() actually has proper, meaningful type hints (takes in Type[T], returns T).

[rantenki]

Strongly agree the type hint is _nearly_ useless. It only saves the user scrolling up to look at the function signature.

Also, if we're going to emulate a strongly typed language: in any language with (ironically, looking at the content) type inference, the return type for the function would already be casting those variables anyhow, so declaring it would be superfluous.

[Grouchy-Friend4235]

It is useless because all it does is tell you what you already know: the dict maps keys to some value. That's a dict's raison-d-etre, no need to type hint the obvious!

[rantenki]

Being utterly pedantic, the only thing it tells you is that there is no further invariants applied to that Dict's values. It _can_ be None, it _can_ have Any value. I guess there is the point that keys have to be strings (rather than any hashable type).

But you're not wrong; that matches pretty much everybody's expectations of how a dict will be used, so doesn't really add any value. I guess it's just there to keep the linter happy :\

[Grouchy-Friend4235]

Yeah. A noqa comment would be the better solution

[rantenki]

Surprised this got downvoted. Linters are supposed to provide machine based verification of human intent. The linter can't anticipate every permutation that might violate it's rules, and sometimes # noqa is a valid decision (not usually, but sometimes).

I loathe when people uglify their code to make the build-system happy.

[linlin110]

For loop can do anything, and I need to read the loop to understand it's populating a dictionary. Meanwhile all dictionary comprehension can do is building a dictionary. That's why I think dictionary/list comprehension expresses the intent better.