At 01:00 PM 1/3/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote: >On 1/3/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>At 11:06 AM 1/3/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote: >> >PS: I think it's interesting how nearly all the use-cases mentioned >> >involve adding type information to functions. >> >>Um, yeah, that was kind of the idea. :) > >I mention that as an amusing contrast to the "you could use >annotations for *anything*!" tone of the latter discussions and the >PEP.
I would guess that's because you're thinking "type" means "Python type object", which is a significantly narrower concept than is being talked about here. >I've never done any serious Java work, but the examples Google has >turned up seem to focus on working around limitations in Java's >reflection and type systems. What were you thinking of? Java annotations came in "after my time", so to speak. I don't have anything specific in mind, I just know they exist and I gather they are used. >>(The problem with your approach to this, though, is that basically you >>still just keep complaining that each use case could be done some other >>way. Of course they can. That's not the point. Might as well argue that >>we don't need both mappings *and* objects with attributes, because >>JavaScript gets by with combining the two.) > >No, my point is that not every n-line function needs to be made into syntax. Um, okay, but that has nothing to do with annotations. :) We added decorator syntax to move their declaration closer to the target and eliminate some duplication. This is exactly the same; it's to improve clarity for the *reader* of the code, at least as much as it is a convenience for the writer of it. _______________________________________________ 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
