On 8/15/06, Paul Prescod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A Typechecking consumer and a PyPy compiler consumer might work on the same > annotations because they are both interested in TYPES (but doing different > things with them). These type consumers might also choose to implement more > than one type checking syntax, if there were a good reason that more than > one arose (perhaps Unix types versus .NET types). > > A docstring consumer and a typechecking consumer would *by definition* use > different syntaxes/frameworks/wrappers because the information that they are > looking for is different! But there could be hundreds of docstring consumers > (as there are today!). Docstrings are a special case because the syntax for > them is fairly obvious (an unadorned string).
So basically what you're saying is that there would be a more-or-less standard wrapper for each application of function annotations. How is this significantly better than my dict-based approach, which uses standardised dict keys to indicate the kind of metadata? 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
