(original) (raw)

On 7 September 2016 at 01:33, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivskyi@gmail.com> wrote:
\> On 6 September 2016 at 17:25, Mark Shannon <mark@hotpy.org> wrote:
\>>
\>> The issue is not whether the checker can tell that the type of the
\>> \*expression\* is int, but whether it is forced to use the type of the
\>> \*variable\*. The current wording of PEP 526 strongly implies the latter.
\>
\> Mark,
\> Could you please point to exact locations in the PEP text and propose an
\> alternative wording, so that we will have a more concrete discussion.

Rather than trying to work that out on the list, it may make the most
sense for Mark to put together a PR that rewords the parts of the PEP
that he sees as constraining typecheckers to restrict \*usage\* of a
variable based on its annotation, rather than just restricting future
bindings to it.