On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivskyi at gmail.com> wrote: > There are two places where PEP draft says: > > "Note that there is no conceptual difference between explicit and implicit > subtypes" > > and > > "The general philosophy is that protocols are mostly like regular ABCs, > but a static type checker will handle them specially." > > Do you want to propose alternative wording for these, or would you rather > like an additional statement? > Let's do an additional statement. Something like "Static analysis tools are expected to automatically detect that a class implements a given protocol. So while it's possible to subclass a protocol explicitly, it's not necessary to do so for the sake of type-checking." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20170321/dae83898/attachment-0001.html>
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