>> We're focused on Python 3.8 and 3.9, not Python 5 or Python 6. Hmmm... When I was hearing the repeated belated saying that Python will never ever jump on the statically typed ship on each and every static type annotation discussion I started to worry this wasn't indeed the case (why the urge of repeating it so much otherwise?).
Now we got standard library features requiring type annotation and a little shift towards a "not now" position. I'm just wondering... I'm NOT saying this would be bad (or good). On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > Hi Fatty, and welcome! > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:00:55PM +0200, Fatty Morgan wrote: > > > The natural interpretation of 'name := expr' is a PEP 526 > > type-annotated variable initialization 'name : T = expr' with the > > type annotation T omitted, the tokens ':' and '=' coalesced, and > > the implied type T inferred as 'type(expr)'. > > I'm not sure why you say that is the "natural" interpretation, > unless you're saying that Guido, Chris, myself and dozens of other > people taking part of this conversation are unnatural, since none of us > thought of that interpretation *smiles* > > The := token is the second most common assignment operator in > programming languages, behind only = single equals sign. For those of us > who were raised on Pascal, it is entirely natural to use = for equality > tests and := for assignment, and languages that use == for equality are > the ones which are weird. > > Since type-annotations are still only used by a small proportion of > Python code and Python developers, I doubt that they will jump to the > interpretation of "explicit type hint with no type given". > > If the type-checker can infer the type of the expression, there's no > need to use the colon at all. > > name := expression # can infer type here > name = expression # why not just infer the type here? > > So using : Type without the type is entirely unnecessary. The colon is > only needed when you have to specify a type manually. > > Your comments about some entirely hypothetical "Python with enforced > static typing" are interesting but so blue-sky that I honestly doubt > that there's any point in discussing them now. We're focused on Python > 3.8 and 3.9, not Python 5 or Python 6. > > > -- > Steve > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ > agriff%40tin.it >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
