RetroSearch Browse

Sun Apr 19 22:26:13 CEST 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/139207.html

On 4/19/2015 1:19 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> On 08/07/2014 09:41 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>> Well!  It's rare that the core dev community is so consistent in its 
>> opinion.  I still think "nullable" is totally appropriate, but I'll 
>> change it to "allow_none".
>
> (reviving eight-month-old thread)

>   * Zen: "There should be one (and preferably only one) obvious way to
>     do it." We have a way of specifying the types this parameter
>     should accept; "allow_none" adds a second.
>   * Zen: "Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules". 
>     "allow_none" was really just a special case of one possible type
>     for "types".
>

Is argument clinic a special case of type annotations?  (Quoted and 
worded to be provocative, intentionally but not maliciously.)

OK, I know that argument clinic applies to C code and I know that type 
annotations apply to Python code. And I know that C code is a lot more 
restrictive /a priori/ which clinic has to accommodate, and type 
annotations are a way of adding (unenforced) restrictions on Python 
code.  Still, from a 50,000' view, there seems to be an overlap in 
functionality... and both are aimed at Py 3.5... I find that 
interesting... I guess describing parameter types is the latest Python 
trend :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150419/688089e0/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-April/139207.html below:

[Python-Dev] Surely "nullable" is a reasonable name?