On 20/04/2015 20:09, Paul Moore wrote: > On 20 April 2015 at 19:41, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: >>> tldr; type hints in python source are scary. Would reserving them for stub >>> files be better? >> I think so. I think PEP 8 should require stub files for stdlib modules and >> strongly encourage them for 3rd party code. > Agreed. I have many of the same concerns as Harry, but I wouldn't have > expressed them quite as well. I'm not too worried about actually > removing annotations from the core language, but I agree that we > should create a strong culture of "type hints go in stub files" to > keep source files readable and clean. > > On that note, I'm not sure "stub" files is a particularly good name. > Maybe "type files" would be better? Something that emphasises that > they are the correct place to put type hints, not a workaround. Or we could just be honest and admit that we're choosing to add header files to Python. It's a shame, as it's more complexity, and it's being inflicted on those who might be writing a library for the first time, or those becoming core committers for the first time, or those just trying to "do the right thing". Currently, the burden is a heavier one (type inference, rather than reading it from a file) but borne by people best placed to handle it (authors of IDEs, type checking software, etc). Chris
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