On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:31:49 +0300, Paul Sokolovsky <pmis...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
But what concerned me as a Python core developer was the perception that as a core developer I would have to deal with type hints and type checking in the stdlib, because there was talk of including type hints for the stdlib (as stub files) in 3.6. *That* was the source of my concern, which is reduced by the statement that we'll only need to think about type checking in the stdlib once the tools are *clearly* adding value, in *our* (the stdlib module maintainers') opinion, so that we *want* to use the type hints. The discussion of stub files being maintained by interested parties in a separate repository is also helpful. Again, that means that wider adoption should mostly only happen if the developers see real benefit. I still dislike the idea of having to read type hints (I agree with whoever it was said a well written docstring is more helpful than abstract type hints when reading Python code), but perhaps I will get used to it if/when it shows up in libraries I use. I think it would serve your goal better if instead of dismissing concerns you were to strive to understand them and then figure out how to allay them. Overall, I suspect that those who are doubtful are put off by the "rah rah this is great you are fools for not wanting to use it" tone of (some) of the proponents (which makes us think this is going to get pushed on us willy-nilly), whereas hearing a consistent message that "this will *enable* interested parties to collaborate on type checking without impacting the way the rest of you code *unless it proves its value to you*" would be better received. Guido has done the latter, IMO, as have some others. --David _______________________________________________ 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
