pycaw

> 1. Like you just mentioned, any of the patterns discussed so far should have been working. > > 2. The contents of the source distribution does not directly influence...

Doesn't it make sense to make it _falsy_? As in, derive from `Sentinel`, add, ```py def __bool__(self) -> Literal[False]: return False ``` and use that as our `MISSING`'s class? As...

> `enableExperimentalFeatures` needs to be set. I meant if you subclass Sentinel then it will break. It seems to me it's a pretty good use case for falsiness but I...

I noticed the behavior below. I assume this is not intended. Why don't we have `pattern` as part of `ClassWithMissing`'s schema as with `ClassWithNone`? Removing the default values will produce...

For the sake of syntactic brevity, not requiring in each cases where MISSING is used in conjunction with some constrained type to have that be wrapped in a RootModel would...

> > For the sake of syntactic brevity, not requiring in each cases where MISSING is used in conjunction with some constrained type to have that be wrapped in a...

~~Is the example above not a gigantic bug with this feature? Should I open an issue about it?~~ -- `constr` was used erroneously here -- And what is the currently...

You are not using constr()... > You are not using `constr()` the expected way. The `con*` functions are meant to be used directly as type annotations, this way: > >...

I do see the constraint... > > But, if you substitute `constr` with `Field` (or `StringConstraints`) you get the same erroneous behavior with classes `Value` + `B` (and of course...

> I tested it with `pydantic==2.14.2` and `pyright==1.1.407` (with `enableExperimentalFeatures = true`), while the model definition works, when I try to access the field I get `str | Unknown`, probably...