[Python-Dev] Type hints -- a mediocre programmer's reaction (original) (raw)

Paul Sokolovsky pmiscml at gmail.com
Tue Apr 21 15:50:42 CEST 2015

Hello,

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:08:27 +0200 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:

[]

Because the user might not run the type checker, obviously. To quote you: """When we say that type checking is optional, we mean it."""

You can't at the same time point out that type checking has no power or control over runtime behaviour, and then claim that type checking makes runtime behaviour (for example, ability to accept or reject certain types) saner. It is a trivial contradiction.

I suspected there's either short-sightedness, or just a word play for for a purpose of word play.

Type annotation are NOT introduced for the purpose of static type checking. The current PEP just gives an example of their usage for static type checking as an example backed by the immediate availability of a tool which does that, MyPy.

But granted, static type checking is the most boring of possible usages for type annotation. Runtime type checking (run as via "make test", not as "production") is much more interesting to catch errors. The tooling for that is yet to be written though.

Even more interesting usage is to allow ahead-of-time, and thus unbloated, optimization. There're bunch of JITters and AOTters for Python language, each of which uses own syntax (via decorators, etc.) to annotate functions. Having language-specified type annotations allows for portable syntax for such optimized code.

Granted, the most juicy usages described above won't be available in CPython out of the box. But there should be that motto: "CPython is the most boring of all Pythons". Don't block the language if you're stuck with an unimaginative implementation, there's much more to Python than that.

-- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmiscml at gmail.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list