On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 07:56:16PM -0500, Terry Reedy wrote: > Maybe it should be reiterated with whatever decision comes forth that > > >>> def muladd(x, y, z): > ... return x * (y+z) > ...
[...] > and other duck-typed code will always be legal, idiomatic, and even > expected as good practice for beginner, informal, exploratory, and > similar python code. Many of the typing-related PEP comes with such a disclaimer, listed as "Non-goals". For example: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/#non-goals Łukasz's stringified annotations PEP has a non-goals section: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0563/#non-goals Larry's deferred evaluation PEP does not: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0649/ but I don't think we should hold it against PEP-649. It's not trying to sneakily sneak mandatory static typechecking in by the back door like some sort of sneaking sneak :-) -- Steve _______________________________________________ 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/XRBNYBEK6ZBZUC2KIDBGEYKYXZ2CBF4C/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
