On 5/18/06, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In looking through all of Guido's blog posts on the subject -- and all
> the comments on them -- I haven't seen anyone consider the case of
> generators. Assuming that "->" makes assertions only about the
> function's return type, if I were to write a generator with the
> following type,
>
> """def my_range(min: Number, max: Number) -> Number"""
>
> it would blow up because the function returns a generator, not a Number.
I'd suggest you consider this in analogy with functions returning
functions. Example:
def foo(n : Number) -> ????:
def bar():
return 12
return bar
What is ????
Two obvious options come to my mind: (1) don't allow it - the return
type is unspecified, after all type annotations are optional, and this
is going to get too hard, too fast; or (2) something like "function()
-> Number".
Now reasoning by analogy, you can apply the same logic to generators -
either (1) don't allow them to be specified, or (2) use something like
"generator() -> int" (and this option allows you to use the "argument"
of the generator as a type annotation for send.
My preference is for (1), but that's in the more general context that
I expect to ignore type annotations in 99% of cases for my own code...
Paul.
_______________________________________________
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
