Guido van Rossum wrote: > I think it would be useful to have a notation that can express > signatures. I haven't spent much time thinking about what this would > look like, but I'd like it to require no new syntax beyond the concept > of type annotations. If this means you can't have the inline > equivalent of your (int int -> int), then perhaps it could be done by > referencing some prototype with the appropriate annotations. Or > perhaps someting as crude as Function(type, type, ..., returns=type) > would be good enough for inlining this.
I haven't forgotten that you asked me to write up a PEP for a signature API in conjunction with the keyword arguments PEP. However, I don't yet feel that the ideas have gelled enough to do so yet -- or at least, I don't feel competent to come up with a definative solution. -- Talin _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
