On 8/14/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 1:51 PM 8/14/2006 -0700, "Paul Prescod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 8/14/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The definition of a type as an annotation should probably be either > > > defined or explicitly undefined. Earlier discussions talked about > > > things like > > > > > > def f (a:int, b:(float | Decimal), c:[int, str, X]) ->str) > > > > > >I think that's a separate (large!) PEP. This PEP should disallow frameworks > >from inventing their own meaning for this syntax (requiring them to at least > >wrap). Then Guido and crew can dig into this issue on their own schedule. > > I see we haven't made nearly as much progress on the concept of "no > predefined semantics" as I thought we had. :( > > i.e., -1 on constraining what types mean.
Haven't I said that the whole time? I *thought* that Collin's PEP steered clear from the topic too. At the same time, does this preclude having some kind of "default" type notation in the standard library? -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
