RetroSearch Browse

Sun Sep 4 14:40:55 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-September/146181.html

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivskyi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 September 2016 at 19:59, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Similarly, it would be reasonable to say that these three snippets
>> should all be equivalent from a typechecking perspective:
>>
>>     x = None # type: Optional[T]
>>
>>     x: Optional[T] = None
>>
>>     x: Optional[T]
>>     x = None
>
>
> Nice idea, explicit is better than implicit.
>

How is it going to help that these are equivalent within one checker,
if the meaning may differ across checkers?

-- Koos

> --
> Ivan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/k7hoven%40gmail.com
>

-- 
+ Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-September/146181.html below:

[Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526