Guido van Rossum wrote: > Here's another way to look at it, maybe it'll help. My hunch is that > whenever someone writes x = copy(y), they actually know more about the > type of y than just that it is an object!
I don't see how this is much different than the situation with __iter__. If you know that y is a sequence of items of type Y, then you know that iter(y) probably produces an object with a next() method that returns objects of type Y. If you're talking about programmers doing type analysis in their heads, I think the type system they use is quite a sophisticated one, certainly a parametric one that has no trouble coping with things like this. > I realize I'm doing a lousy job of explaining me. What's confusing is that you're talking about static typing issues in a language that has no static type system. I'm having trouble seeing the relevance. -- Greg _______________________________________________ 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
