Hello, On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:50:59 -0700 Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> On 04/21, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > > > And for example yesterday's big theme was people blackmailing that > > they stop contributing to stdlib if annotations are in [...] > > A volunteer's honest reaction is not blackmail, and categorizing it > as such is not helpful to the discussion. Sure, that was rather humoresque note. Still, one may wonder why "honest reaction" is like that, if from reading PEP484 it's clear that it doesn't change status quo: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107 added annotations long ago, and PEP484 just provides default semantics for them. Note that *default*, not the "only". PEP484 is full of conditions and long transition windows. Did PEP3107 shutter everyone's world? No. And PEP484 is nothing but a logical continuation of PEP3107, coming forward with real use for annotations, but not intended to shutter everyone's world. Well, hopefully Guido now clarified what was already written PEP484 (or not written, like nowhere it says "we add requirement of mandatory typehints in version 3.x [of stdlib or otherwise]"). But now people try to come up with *anti*-patterns on how to use type annotation and argue that these anti-patterns are not useful. Surely, annotations are useful in some places and not useful in other. requests doesn't need them? Good. But it's quite useful to annotate FFT routines and subroutines as taking arrays of floats, we can't get "faster than C"(tm) without that, like some other languages did (or claim to have done, and now look attractive). (You don't do FFT in Python? OMG, that's old.) -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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
