On 8/9/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Collin Winter wrote: > > one library might use string-based annotations to provide > > improved help messages, like so: > > > > def compile(source: "something compilable", > > filename: "where the compilable thing comes from", > > mode: "is this a single statement or a suite?"): > > > > Another library might be used to provide typechecking for Python > > functions and methods. > > > > def sum(*vargs: Number) -> Number: > > ... > > And what are you supposed to do if you want to write > a function that has improved help messages *and* > type checking?
I already answered this in my response to Talin. The next draft will address this directly. > > The difficulty inherent in writing annotation interpreting > > libraries will keep their number low and their authorship in the > > hands of people who, frankly, know what they're doing. > > Even if there are only two of them, they can still > conflict. No-one is arguing that there won't be conflicting ideas about how to spell different annotation ideas; just look at the number of interface/role/typeclass/whatever implementations. The idea is that each developer can pick the notation/semantics that's most natural to them. I'll go even further: say one library offers a semantics you find handy for task A, while another library's ideas about type annotations are best suited for task B. Without a single standard, you're free to mix and match these libraries to give you a combination that allows you to best express the ideas you're going for. Collin Winter _______________________________________________ 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
