Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> wrote:
> So here's the problem. Let's say you want to write an extension that will
> work
> with Python 3.3 and 3.4, using the stable ABI. If you don't add this line,
> then in 3.4 you won't have introspection information, drat. But if you *do*
> add this line, your docstring will look mildly stupid in 3.3, because it'll
> have this unsightly "sig=(" line at the top. And it *won't* have a nice
> handwritten docstring. (And if you added both a sig= signature *and* a
> handwritten signature, in 3.4 it would display both. That would also look
> dumb.)
I think we may slowly get into PEP territory here. Just imagine that
we settle on X, then decide at a later point to have a standard way of
adding type annotations, then find that X does not work because of (unknown).
I'm mentioning this because signatures get really interesting for me
if they contain type information.
Stefan Krah
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
