[Python-ideas] Attribute Docstrings and Annotations (original) (raw)
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Tue Jan 2 19:41:46 CET 2007
- Previous message: [Python-ideas] Attribute Docstrings and Annotations
- Next message: [Python-ideas] Attribute Docstrings and Annotations
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Yes, I blogged about it, but in the discussion that followed on python-3000 it became clear that the "typed attribute" notation is not a favorite of many folks, and I'm no longer in favor of it myself. The use cases are a lot weaker than for signature annotations. So let's drop it.
On 1/2/07, Tony Lownds <tony at pagedna.com> wrote:
On Jan 2, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Josiah Carlson wrote: > > Tony Lownds <tony at pagedna.com> wrote: >> On Jan 1, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote: >>> I have never needed attribute annotations, and I've never heard any >>> core >>> Python developer talk about it being useful to have them. -1 for >>> the >>> feature in any form. >>> The syntax as described is ugly. -100 for the feature if it has the >>> syntax provided. >>> >> >> It's the same syntax as function annotations... >> >> def f(name: annotation = value): >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I don't particularly like the look of function annotations either, > but I > don't have a better syntax (aside from swapping the annotation and > value). > In this case, I really don't like attribute annotations because it > looks to me like a bunch of line noise without meaning, or some C-like > conditional expression gone wrong. > > >> class F: >> name: annotation = value >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> The syntax was presented on Guido's blog, too. >> >> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=87182 > > I didn't like it when Guido posted it on his blog either. I would > also > point out that Guido lists attribute annotations as a "maybe". > Perhaps > he has become 100% on them, I don't know, but I'm still -1. > > In any case, you still haven't provided any use-cases, or an example > where developers have been asking for the feature and could show that > not having the feature was constraining them in some significant > way. As long as it's clear that the syntax as proposed has SOME existing thought behind it, I'm happy to leave the proposal alone. -Tony
Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
- Previous message: [Python-ideas] Attribute Docstrings and Annotations
- Next message: [Python-ideas] Attribute Docstrings and Annotations
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]