Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Stefan Krah <ste...@bytereef.org> wrote: > > Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> wrote: > >> * The DSL currently makes no provision for specifying per-parameter > >> type annotations. This is something explicitly supported in Python; > >> it should be supported for builtins too, once we have reflection support. > >> > >> It seems to me that the syntax for parameter lines--dictated by > >> Guido--suggests conversion functions are themselves type annotations. > >> This makes intuitive sense. > > > > Really, did you read PEP 437? It's all in there. > > This attitude is unhelpful. Please stop being outright hostile. If you > want to have any influence on the outcome at all, consider looking > into compromises.
My apologies, I agree that wasn't very constructive. In case there's a misunderstanding: This wasn't an attempt to push the whole of PEP 437 again. Type-specifying converters were first mentioned in issue #16612 and are central to PEP 437, so my response should have been something like "I think that's already covered in section X of ...". Regarding compromises: I'm not at all after getting as many parts of PEP 437 into the end result as possible. Apparently PEP 437 as a whole is unacceptable, so if Larry's original PEP 436 turns out to be more coherent than the revised PEP 436, then I'd actually favor Larry's original. I'm getting the impression though that the proposal that Guido, Larry and Nick worked out at PyCon *is* reasonably coherent. So my position is the same as Nick's in http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-March/124757.html Stefan Krah _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
