[Python-3000] Draft pre-PEP: function annotations (original) (raw)
Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Tue Aug 15 03:08:25 CEST 2006
- Previous message: [Python-3000] Function annotations considered obfuscatory (Re: Conventions for annotation consumers)
- Next message: [Python-3000] Draft pre-PEP: function annotations
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 1:51 PM 8/14/2006 -0700, "Paul Prescod" <paul at prescod.net> wrote:
On 8/14/06, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote: > The definition of a type as an annotation should probably be either > defined or explicitly undefined. Earlier discussions talked about > things like > > def f (a:int, b:(float | Decimal), c:[int, str, X]) ->str)
I think that's a separate (large!) PEP. This PEP should disallow frameworks from inventing their own meaning for this syntax (requiring them to at least wrap). Then Guido and crew can dig into this issue on their own schedule.
I see we haven't made nearly as much progress on the concept of "no predefined semantics" as I thought we had. :(
i.e., -1 on constraining what types mean.
- Previous message: [Python-3000] Function annotations considered obfuscatory (Re: Conventions for annotation consumers)
- Next message: [Python-3000] Draft pre-PEP: function annotations
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]