On Jun 28, 2004, at 9:05 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 04:29 PM 6/28/04 -0500, Jeff Bone wrote: >> If you allow conditional evaluation or parameterization of decorators >> w/o some consideration about their impact on static type analysis --- >> as in the nightmare scenario I offered previously --- AND if you >> believe that adding some optional static typing and type analysis to >> Python in the future is at least possibly desirable, then it leads >> one to consider whether additional constraints *might* be in order. > > No, it doesn't. Yes, it does --- as the examples offered indicate. > You can already make weird decorators that disassemble the bytecode of > the function and create a new function object, for example. PEP 318 > does nothing to change that fact. True, but irrelevant unless you happen to be strategically myopic and slightly programming-language illiterate. Tell me, Phil --- what is your damage here? I believe we both want the same outcome. So why are you getting so aggressive (or defensive, I can't tell which) about the route to the particular, and shared, outcome? As surely as I'm convinced about the need for and worthiness of certain considerations about static type-checking and the future of this language, I'm willing to grant that you're equally concerned about something else, even though I don't yet know what. Why can't we have the discussion on that factual basis instead of bogus third-hand references to the questionable intent (though somewhat clear, but still questionable relative to desiderata) of a spec you didn't write? The only legit explanation I can think of is that *you know how to implement the PEP as you understand it now, but fail to understand the longer-term implications of said interpretation of PEP / implementation." Take the time to connect w/ me or others on these concerns; I think you will find them not entirely out of sync. I may not have posted here much over the years, but I'm sure both I and countless others have put in the time to get the hearing for our concerns w/o being swatted down w/ an inconclusive spec like and ignorant school-marm swatting an overly-inquisitive 2nd-grader. > Thus, attempting to define restrictions for them is moot, No, it's not -- as demonstrated previously. > as far as anybody attempting to create program analysis tools -- they > already have to deal with this dynamism today, and restricting PEP 318 > simply won't help. What a completely BS response. Yet --- true, but only if one accepts a particular and rather simple-minded and overly-literal interpretation of the ***GOALS*** of PEP 318, driven by hackers that are inclined to hack certain changes into THE (and that in itself is an indictment) implementation of the language --- changes that that are very lightly implied by the PEP into the interpreter, rather than considering the longer-term goals and objectives of both the PEP and the language. And THAT IS MY POINT. jb CTO, Deepfile
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4