On Saturday, September 22, 2018 2:32:04 PM CDT Rasmus Schultz wrote: > Larry, > > this wasn't aimed at "you" personally, I'm just using the proverbial "you", > as in "not me". > > if you read my last post (especially the last part) carefully, you'll see > why this elephant analogy is incomplete. > > the issue is not whether or not something gets in - it's much more far > reaching than that. > > the issue is, once something gets in, can you even be sure that that > something is what it claims to be?
.. Yes? > at the moment you can't, and that's a serious issue - type hints appear to > provide some guarantees that in fact aren't provided at all. it's > confusing, and the explanations are more complex than they need to be. > > (and I guess that's generally an issue in very dynamic languages, but type > hints are supposed to provide a means to improve on these problems where it > makes sense - not make the problems worse.) Do you have a code sample to explain what you mean? At the moment I really have a hard time envisioning what the pitfall is, especially if we were to add checkpoint validity checks. What's the code that would appear safe but really isn't? Please show us, because I don't know what it is. --Larry Garfield
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
