On 8/16/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Sorry, I meant "restrict" as in having it stated that the annotations are for typechecking, rather than attempting to support a dozen different uses simultaneously. The annotations would still be free-form, with the semantics up to whoever's implementing the __typecheck__ function, and Python itself wouldn't take any steps to enforce what can or can't go in the annotations. Is this more along the lines of what you meant? 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
