On 4/20/2015 9:07 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote: >> Jack is not complaining only about *writing* code. He's complaining >> about the effect this will have on code that we all are expected to >> *read*. For reading, good function and parameter names and a good summary as the first line of the docstring are probably more useful *to humans* than formal type annotations. > Ahh. Yes, that's a concern. When you go digging into that library to > find out how it works, yes, you'd be face-to-face with their type > annotations. > Maybe it'd be of value to have a quick "code stripper" that takes away > all the annotations, I was already thinking about that for Idle. The file should then be either semi read-only or renamed. Also options to merge annotations in from stub files for editing and to split back out when writing. > plus any other junk/framing that you're not > interested in, and gives you something you can browse in a text > editor? It could take away all the Sphinx adornments from docstrings, > any source control versioning markers, all that kind of thing. Interesting idea. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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