[Python-3000] Conventions for annotation consumers (was: Re: Draft pre-PEP: function annotations) (original) (raw)

Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com
Tue Aug 15 16:38:34 CEST 2006

On 8/15/06, Collin Winter <collinw at gmail.com> wrote:

Here's the modified example

@docstring @typechecker @constrainvalues def foo(a: {'doc': "Frobnication count", 'type': Number, 'constrainvalues': range(3, 9)}, b: {'type': Number, # This can be only 4, 8 or 12 'constrainvalues': [4, 8, 12]}) -> {'type': Number}

I've been keeping out of this - I haven't followed the discussions, and I am certainly not up to speed on the various subtleties, but surely there's no intention that a monstrosity like this would count as a "normal" function definition in Py3K???!!!!

I'm going to raise the bar for future ideas on this subject: any proposals must be able to address the following use cases: [...] Proposals that do not address all of these will not be considered.

Can I suggest a further constraint - anything that results in the definition of a simple 2-argument function not fitting on a single source line is probably unworkable in practice?

Paul.

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list