Michael McLay wrote: > Tim suggested that the type checking feature might be enough to get the > patch rejected. For the moment let's assume I had not added that > feature. Given this assumption, i like your patch and the spelling and think it is reasonable. Without the assumption, I would suggest you throw down some details on the types-sig list. Lots of folks have ideas and its a rather hot topic for some (but the discussion has always been very civil!). I for one, would like to revive the type checking discussion because it's a sticky problem that needs to be solved. So far, there have been a few different proposed solutions. PaulP proposed and implemented a prototype that did flexible type checking. I proposed (PEP 245) an interface syntax that is somewhat orthogonal to that. Clark Evans also talks about type checking in PEP 246. > The patch does still makes adding member_descriptors more consistent > with > the syntax used to add properties. I agree. -Michel
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