On 8/15/06, Paul Prescod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/15/06, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Extending this same idea to static analysis tools, tools like > > pychecker or an optimising compiler would have to supply their own > > such wrapper classes. This would be a huge burden, not just on the > > authors of such tools, but also on those wishing to use these tools. > > No, this is incorrect. Metadata is just metadata. Libraries act on metadata. > There is a many to many relationship. You could go and define Collin's type > metadata syntax. You create a library of wrappers (really you need only ONE > wrapper). Then you could convince the writers of PyPy to use the same > syntax. So there would be one set of annotations used by two libraries.
If multiple libraries use the same wrappers, then I can't use more than one of these libraries at the same time. If a typechecking consumer, a docstring consumer and PyPy all use the same wrapper (or "syntax" -- you switch terms between sentences), then I can't have typechecking and docstrings on the same functions, and I can't do either if I'm running my program with PyPy. Collin Winter _______________________________________________ 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
