Hello, On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Paul Sokolovsky <pmis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:43:52 +0200 > Wolfgang Langner <tds333+py...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [] > > > Also ask why no one used type specifier, they are possible since > > Python 3.0 ? > > Because it is the wrong way for Python. > > That's an example of how perceptions differ. In my list, everyone(*) > uses them - MyPy, MicroPython, etc. Even more should use them (any JIT > module, which are many), but sit in the bushes, waiting for a kick, like > PEP484 provides. > > > (*) Everyone of those who needs them. Otherwise, let's throw out > metaclasses - noone uses them. > > They are there to be used and won't go away. But for most Libraries out there no one used it. JIT (Numba), Cython and other compilers/tools doing optimization have their own syntax and needs. They need even more information like i32, i64, different floats and so on. MyPy is really new and in development. And the docstring type spec way is still possible. MicroPython uses one annotation for their inline assembler stuff not type hints. For the library there are no type hints for function definitions. Remark: I use Metaclasses, seldom but if needed very useful. :-) -- bye by Wolfgang
_______________________________________________ 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
