On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 22:42, Rob Cliffe via Python-Dev <python-dev@python.org> wrote: > > UGH! > > I thought there was a general understanding that when typing was added > to Python, there would be no impact, or at least minimal impact, on > people who didn't use it. (Raises hand.) > Now we see an(other) instance of intention creep.
To be fair, none of this is needed unless you want to add type annotations to your code. So it's still perfectly possible to ignore all of this (which is what I am currently doing). What I am concerned about is when users of libraries I write start to claim that I "need" to add this sort of stuff to my code, so that they can type check their code that uses mine, and/or they can get tooltips for my APIs in their IDEs. That's where I think the biggest issue with a proposal like this arises - the *social* pressure on people to adopt typing, and all the complexities it adds. But again, that's not something that's specific to this proposal, it's inherent in the whole question of whether people add type annotations at all. So I'm -1 on this proposal, but just because I fear I may be forced to use it when I don't need to, rather than because I think it's a bad idea per se. Paul PS To be open here, I do actually like type annotations in straightforward situations - they have located some bugs in my code for me, and tooltips in VS code *are* nice. What I don't like is not being able to stick to simple stuff and not bother annotating the complicated bits, or being pushed into over-strict annotations because it's too hard (or verbose) to express dynamic, duck-typed constraints. _______________________________________________ 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/MOO3FUV3XKSKEGRIAOXSIVBMGPGFXYLV/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
