Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I'm not convinced that we need all this for the likely intended use, > since static type checking isn't really high on the agenda anyway.
I know I'll get into trouble for quoting this out of context, and I accept that there's a difference between static typing and writing declarations that look like static type declarations but which operate at run-time. However, I keep wondering whether we're missing out on something by adopting a type description language that will either prove to be inadequately expressive or evolve to something on the level of a full programming language in its own right. What's the general opinion on systems which attempt to infer and predict inappropriate type usage? (Which I'm guessing is the main motivation here, rather than performance, which if I recall correctly, was downplayed in the context of "optional" type declarations.) By "predict", I mean something that operates before run-time; not something which tells you 100ns before an exception is raised. Couldn't such systems be a better aid to program reliability? Would "optional" type declarations be relevant to the operation of such systems? Paul _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
