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

Paul Prescod paul at prescod.net
Thu Aug 17 02:11:34 CEST 2006

Okay, you're the boss. The conversation did go pretty far afield but the main thing I wanted was just that if a user wanted to have annotations from framework 1 and framework 2 they could reliably express that as

def foo(a: [Anno1, Anno2]):

All that that requires is a statement in the spec saying: "If you're processing annotations and you see an annotation you don't understand, skip it. And if you see a list, look inside it rather than processing it in some proprietary fashion."

It kind of seemed obvious to me, but I guess everyone's ideas seem obvious to them. There were other secondary things I would have liked but this seemed like the minimum required to protect programmers from "greedy frameworks" that don't play nice in the face of unfamiliar annotations.

On 8/16/06, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

There's much in this thread that I haven't followed, for lack of time. But it seems clear to me that you've wandered off the path now that you're discussing what should go into the annotations and how to make it so that multiple frameworks can coexist. I don't see how any of that can be analyzed up front -- you have to build an implementation and try to use it and then perhaps you can think about the problems that occur. Collin wrote a great PEP that doesn't commit to any kind of semantics for annotations. (I still have to read it more closely, but from skimming, it looks fine.) Let's focus some efforts on implementing that first, and see how we can use it, before we consider the use case of a framework for frameworks. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/attachments/20060816/b8481a6c/attachment.html

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list