On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 2:19 PM <ed...@211mainstreet.net> wrote: > April 12, 2021 4:59 PM, "Brett Cannon" <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 3:01 AM Hugh Fisher <hugo.fis...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >>> Message: 1 > >>> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:31:12 -0700 > >>> From: Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> > >>> Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: PEP 647 Accepted > >> > >>> > >>> This is something the SC has been musing about, but as it’s not a > fully formed idea, I’m a little > >> hesitant to bring it up. That said, it’s somewhat relevant: We wonder > if it may be time to in a > >> sense separate the typing syntax from Python’s regular syntax. > TypeGuards are a case where if > >> typing had more flexibility to adopt syntax that wasn’t strictly legal > “normal” Python, maybe > >> something more intuitive could have been proposed. I wonder if the > typing-sig has discussed this > >> possibility (in the future, of course)? > >> > >> [ munch ] > >> > >>> > >>> Agreed. It’s interesting that PEP 593 proposes a different approach to > enriching the typing > >> system. Typing itself is becoming a little ecosystem of its own, and > given that many Python users > >> are still not fully embracing typing, maybe continuing to tie the > typing syntax to Python syntax is > >> starting to strain. > >> > >> I would really like to see either "Typed Python" become a different > programming > >> language, or progress to building type checking into the CPython > implementation > >> itself. (Python 4 seems to me the obvious release.) The current halfway > approach > >> is confusing and slightly ridiculous. > > > > Please don't denigrate the hard work people have put in to even bring > forward the idea of typing in > > Python by saying it's "slightly ridiculous". > > > > -Brett > > Aren't people allowed to have their own opinions?
Yes, of course. > Please, I hate to see this list descend further and further into such > knee-jerk reactions. It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction. I did take the time to think about replying. > If criticism of any current implementation of any construct becomes > off-limits is automatically classed as "denigrating", there is no reason > for this list to exist. You might not agreed with the criticism, but you > should at least be open to discussion. > And I didn't try to shut down the discussion. My point was not about the intent of the message, but how that message was delivered. Being considerate and acknowledging people's time and effort is important and I don't think saying something is "ridiculous" does that. Had the sentences ended at "confusing" or said something like "I don't think it's as optimal as it could be" or "I think it could be better" are all fine. But saying that the current approach is "arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : absurd, preposterous" as defined by Merriam-Webster <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridiculous> is not necessary to make the point; it could have been phrased in such a way as to be a bit more respectful to those who have put in the time and effort to get things to where they are.
_______________________________________________ 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/OGASYCZ7P4YXW2WHGAYOOEBFWMRCJFGM/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
