[Replying to Steve Dower]
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 04:19:13AM +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 10:47:41AM -0700, Steve Dower wrote:
> > "I'm not seeing what distinction you think you are making here. What
> > distinction do you see between:
> >
> > x: int = func(value)
> >
> > and
> >
> > x = func(value) #type: int"
> >
> > Not sure whether I agree with Mark on this particular point, but the
> > difference I see here is that the first describes what types x may
> > ever contain, while the latter describes what type of being assigned
> > to x right here. So one is a variable annotation while the other is an
> > expression annotation.
I see it differently, but I'm quite used to OCaml:
# let f () =
let x : int = 10 in
let x : float = 320.0 in
x;;
Warning 26: unused variable x.
val f : unit -> float = <fun>
# f();;
- : float = 320.
Like in Python, in OCaml variables can be rebound and indeed have different
types with different explicit type constraints.
Expressions can also be annotated, but require parentheses (silly example):
# let x = (10 * 20 : int);;
val x : int = 200
So I'm quite happy with the proposed syntax in the PEP, perhaps the
parenthesized expression annotations could also be added. But these
are only very rarely needed.
Stefan Krah
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
