Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org> wrote:
> So here's the problem. Let's say you want to write an extension that will work
> with Python 3.3 and 3.4, using the stable ABI. If you don't add this line,
> then in 3.4 you won't have introspection information, drat. But if you *do*
> add this line, your docstring will look mildly stupid in 3.3, because it'll
> have this unsightly "sig=(" line at the top. And it *won't* have a nice
> handwritten docstring. (And if you added both a sig= signature *and* a
> handwritten signature, in 3.4 it would display both. That would also look
> dumb.)
I think we may slowly get into PEP territory here. Just imagine that
we settle on X, then decide at a later point to have a standard way of
adding type annotations, then find that X does not work because of (unknown).
I'm mentioning this because signatures get really interesting for me
if they contain type information.
Stefan Krah
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