> Regarding function parameters, yes, so that's definitely an advantage. But > that does not yet give you type annotations for variables. If I understand the > original proposal right, those would become > > cdef type.param(1,2,3) varname > This is going to be a repeat of what Robert already said, but I feel it is important that the point gets through:
The original proposal did not say anything about how to declare a variable. It does a) say something about how to declare/use a type, anywhere a type might be needed, b) use the current syntax for the examples, because using a non-current syntax for examples would be silly (where would one stop? type inference is a real possibility, should I assume that for the examples?) We all agree that decorating variables in real Python is a real problem, but this proposal doesn't change anything for better or worse considering that. What this proposal says is that, given a hyopthetical CEP102 that proposes the following syntax for declaring types of in-function variables: i = typed(int) then a consequence of my proposal is that it is legal to also say v = typed(cpp.vector(int)) On the other hand, if the hypothetical CEP103 gets accepted instead which says "screw Python syntax" and makes it i: int also inside functions, then a consequence of my proposal is that it is legal to also say v: cpp.vector(int) inside functions. See how they are orthogonal, to use Robert's phrase? I'm sorry if the proposal was unclear about this. Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
