On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 11:49 AM Gregory P. Smith <g...@krypto.org> wrote:
> *TL;DR of my TL;DR* - Not conveying bool-ness directly in the return > annotation is my only complaint. A BoolTypeGuard spelling would > alleviate that. I'm +0.3 now. Otherwise I elaborate on other guarding > options and note a few additional Rejected/Postponed/Deferred Ideas > sections that the PEP should mention as currently out of scope: > Unconditional guards, multiple guarded parameters, and type mutators. > Along the way I work my way towards suggestions for those, but I think they > don't belong in _this_ PEP and could serve as input for future ones if/when > desired. > Thanks for having an open mind. We should try to find a name that conveys the boolean-ness to casual readers. But I note that "naming is hard" and there are other aspects that already convey the boolean-ness (e.g. the naming convention starting with 'is', and the presence of 'return True' in the body :-), and I don't think that the proposed 'BoolTypeGuard' adds readability. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/J3DX2DACGA4YIXOKICO4IY5L6F36SAKT/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
