(original) (raw)
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 at 14:21 Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
I'm happy to present PEP 526 for your collective review:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0526/ (HTML)
https://github.com/python/peps/blob/master/pep-0526.txt (source)
There's also an implementation ready:
https://github.com/ilevkivskyi/cpython/tree/pep-526
I don't want to post the full text here but I encourage feedback on
the high-order ideas, including but not limited to
\- Whether (given PEP 484's relative success) it's worth adding syntax
for variable/attribute annotations.
I think so, otherwise type hints are in this weird "half in, half out" situation in terms of support that only non-OO code can fully utilize. Either we're going to have type hints for those that want it and properly support it for full use, or we shouldn't have type hints at all and this syntax fills in a nice gaps that was a bit awkward to use before.
\- Whether the keyword-free syntax idea proposed here is best:
NAME: TYPE
TARGET: TYPE = VALUE
I personally like it. I've been learning Rust lately and it matches up with their syntax (sans \`let\`) and I have been happy with it (same goes for TypeScript's use of the same syntax that Rust uses).
-Brett
Note that there's an extensive list of rejected ideas in the PEP;
please be so kind to read it before posting here:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0526/#rejected-proposals-and-things-left-out-for-now
\--
\--Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org