[Python-ideas] PEP 3107 Function Annotations: interoperability (again) (original) (raw)

Tony Lownds tony at PageDNA.com
Tue Jan 2 00:17:36 CET 2007

In discussing the Function Annotations PEP on python-list,
interoperability between schemes came up again:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2006-December/420645.html

John Roth wrote:

Third, it's half of a proposal. Type checking isn't the only use for metadata about functions/methods, classes, properties and other objects, and the notion that there are only going to be a small number of non-intersecting libraries out there is an abdication of responsibility to think this thing through.

This issue came up before in http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-August/002796.html and a rather long thread followed. Here is the paragraph in the PEP that needs updating, at the least:

There is no worry that these libraries will assign semantics at
random, or that a variety of libraries will appear, each with
varying semantics and interpretations of what, say, a tuple of
strings means. The difficulty inherent in writing annotation
interpreting libraries will keep their number low and their
authorship in the hands of people who, frankly, know what they're
doing.

The notion that libraries don't intersect should be stripped from the PEP. The question in my mind is whether this PEP needs to take responsibility for interoperability.

I contend that people who design an annotation-consuming library that ends up intersecting several others will likely be capable of
finding a solution even if not ideal without a central mechanism, and will be
far better situated to define a solution for a central mechanism.

Any thoughts?

Thanks -Tony

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list