RetroSearch Browse

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20151005/bfcd6a06/attachment.html below:

<div dir="ltr">Function annotations for uses other than types are not deprecated, just discouraged if they don't have an appropriate decorator:Â <a href="https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html#typing.no_type_check">https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html#typing.no_type_check</a>Â . There is even a decorator for decorators since most uses previous to type hints utilized some form of a decorator:Â <a href="https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html#typing.no_type_check_decorator">https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html#typing.no_type_check_decorator</a>Â . And as a last resort you simply don't use your Python code with anything that assumes type hints.</div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 at 12:57 Ryan Gonzalez <<a href="mailto:rymg19@gmail.com">rymg19@gmail.com</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">There is one reason I would be really freaking mad if they deprecated other uses of annotations: 
 
<a href="https://pypi.python.org/pypi/plac" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pypi.python.org/pypi/plac</a> 
 
On October 5, 2015 1:55:37 PM CDT, Steve Wedig <<a href="mailto:stevewedig@gmail.com" target="_blank">stevewedig@gmail.com</a>> wrote: 
>Congratulations on the release of 3.5 and Pep 484. I've used Python 
>professionally for 10 years and I believe type hints will make it 
>easier to 
>work with large codebases evolving over time. My only concern about Pep 
>484 
>is the discussion of whether or not to deprecate arbitrary function 
>annotations. 
><a href="https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/</a> 
> 
>I would like to request that arbitrary function annotations are not 
>deprecated for three reasons: 
>1. Backwards Compatibility 
>2. Type Experimentation 
>3. Embedded Languages 
> 
>1. Backwards Compatibility 
>After reading Pep 3107 my team has made significant use of non-standard 
>annotations. It would be a serious burden to be forced to port our 
>annotations back to decorators. This would also make our codebase 
>considerably less readable because function annotations are much more 
>readable than input/output annotations relegated to decorators. 
><a href="https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/</a> 
> 
>2. Type Experimentation 
>Arbitrary function annotations allow developers to experiment with 
>potential type system improvements in real projects. Ideas can be 
>validated 
>before officially adding them to the language. This seems like an 
>advantage 
>that should be preserved. After all, Pep 484 says it was strongly 
>inspired 
>by MyPy, an existing project. 
><a href="http://mypy-lang.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mypy-lang.org/</a> 
> 
>3. Embedded Languages 
>Python's flexibility makes it an amazing language to embed other 
>languages 
>in. In this regard, Python 3's addition of arbitrary function 
>annotations 
>and class decorators complements Python 2's dynamic typing, function 
>decorators, reflection, metaclasses, properties, magic methods, 
>generators, 
>and keyword arguments. Arbitrary function annotations are a crucial 
>part of 
>this toolkit, and this feature is not available in most other 
>languages. 
>For anyone interested in the utility and mechanics of embedded 
>languages, 
>I'd recommend Martin Fowler's book: Domain Specific Languages. 
><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Specific-Languages-Addison-Wesley-Signature-Series/dp/0321712943" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Specific-Languages-Addison-Wesley-Signature-Series/dp/0321712943</a> 
> 
>So I agree with the course of action mentioned in Pep 484 that avoids 
>runtime deprecation of arbitrary function annotation: "Another possible 
>outcome would be that type hints will eventually become the default 
>meaning 
>for annotations, but that there will always remain an option to disable 
>them." I would only add that there should be a way to disable type 
>checking 
>for an entire directory (recursively). This would be useful for 
>codebases 
>that have not been ported to standard annotations yet, and for 
>codebases 
>that will not be ported for the reasons listed above. 
> 
>Thanks for your consideration. 
> 
>Best, 
>Steve 
> 
> 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
>_______________________________________________ 
>Python-Dev mailing list 
><a href="mailto:Python-Dev@python.org" target="_blank">Python-Dev@python.org</a> 
><a href="https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev</a> 
>Unsubscribe: 
><a href="https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/rymg19%40gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/rymg19%40gmail.com</a> 
 
-- 
Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. 
_______________________________________________ 
Python-Dev mailing list 
<a href="mailto:Python-Dev@python.org" target="_blank">Python-Dev@python.org</a> 
<a href="https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev</a> 
Unsubscribe: <a href="https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org</a> 
</blockquote></div>

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