RetroSearch Browse

Tue Feb 4 10:51:26 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-February/132255.html

On 02/03/2014 08:05 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> 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.

I simultaneously share your interest, and also suspect that maybe Python 
is the wrong language for that.  After all, Python has always been about 
duck-typing.

Even if it did happen, it won't be for quite a while yet.  The logical 
mechanism for type information in pure Python is annotations, and afaik 
they're not getting any large-scale real-world use for type annotating.  
(If I'm misinformed I'd love to hear counterexamples.)

//arry/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140204/879d9440/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-February/132255.html below:

[Python-Dev] The docstring hack for signature information has to go