At 10:09 AM 8/16/2006 -0500, Collin Winter wrote: >On 8/15/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Personally, I thought Guido's original proposal for function annotations, >>which included a __typecheck__ operator that was replaceable on a >>per-module basis (and defaulted to a no-op), was the perfect thing -- >>neither too much semantics nor too-little. I'd like to have it back, >>please. :) > >I'd be perfectly happy to go back to talking about "type annotations", >rather than the more general "function annotations", especially since >most of the discussion thus far has been about how to multiple things >with annotations at the same time. Restricting annotations to type >information would be fine by me.
Who said anything about restricting annotations to type information? I just said I liked Guido's original proposal better -- because it doesn't restrict a darned thing, and makes it clear that the semantics are up to you. The annotations of course should still be exposed as a function attribute. _______________________________________________ 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
