Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Jack Diederich <jackd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > * It is not optional. Please stop saying that. The people promoting > > it would prefer that everyone use it. If it is approved it will be > > optional in the way that PEP8 is optional. If I'm reading your > > annotated code it is certainly /not/ optional that I understand the > > annotations. […] > > Maybe I'm completely misreading everything here […]
I think you've misunderstood the complaint. > When you're writing a library, it can be a great help to provide type > annotations, because every application that uses your library can > benefit. When you're writing an application, you can completely ignore > them, but still get the benefit of everyone else's. Jack is not complaining only about *writing* code. He's complaining about the effect this will have on code that we all are expected to *read*. Programmers spend a great deal of time reading code written by other people. The costs of this proposal are only partly on the writers of the code; they are significantly borne by the people *reading* that code. For them, it is not optional. > I have no fears for my own code. Are you afraid for yours? Jack, if I understand correctly, fears for the code that will be written by others in conformance with this proposal, that he will then have to read and understand. -- \ “The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But | `\ the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound | _o__) truth.” —Niels Bohr | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ 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
