[Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526 (original) (raw)
Koos Zevenhoven k7hoven at gmail.com
Sun Sep 4 14:40:55 EDT 2016
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivskyi at gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 September 2016 at 19:59, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: [...]
Similarly, it would be reasonable to say that these three snippets should all be equivalent from a typechecking perspective: x = None # type: Optional[T] x: Optional[T] = None x: Optional[T] x = None Nice idea, explicit is better than implicit.
How is it going to help that these are equivalent within one checker, if the meaning may differ across checkers?
-- Koos
-- Ivan
Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/k7hoven%40gmail.com
--
- Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]