On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Jelle Zijlstra
<jelle.zijlstra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2016-05-27 16:01 GMT-07:00 Guido van Rossum <gvanrossum at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Also -- the most important thing. :-) What to call these things? We're
>> pretty much settled on the semantics and how to create them (A =
>> NewType('A', int)) but what should we call types like A when we're
>> talking about them? "New types" sounds awkward.
>
>
> For what it's worth, Haskell uses the term "newtype" for a very similar
> concept (https://wiki.haskell.org/Newtype), so maybe Python should follow
> suit in the interest of not creating new confusing terminology.
Yeah, I started out rejecting this because I don't like such neologisms.
> "Dependent type" (proposed by a few people) already means something else
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_type), so it doesn't seem like a
> good choice here.
I apologize, when I brought that up I meant to say "derived type" (as
should have been clear from the link I provided
(https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Type_System#Derived_types).
I agree dependent types would be a terrible name here. :-)
I am currently in favor of Distinct Type [Alias].
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
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