On 3 September 2016 at 18:03, Stephen J. Turnbull <turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > Therefore, I think Nick's version was an abuse of variable annotation. > I don't mean to criticize Nick, as he was trying to make the best of > an unlikely proposal. But if Nick can fall into this trap[2], I think > the fears of many that type annotations will grow like fungus on code > that really doesn't need them, and arguably is better without them, > are quite reasonable.
I suggest lots of things of python-ideas that I would probably oppose if they ever made it as far as python-dev - enabling that kind of speculative freedom is a large part of *why* we have a brainstorming list. For me, type annotations fall into the same category in practice as metaclasses and structural linters: if you're still asking yourself the question "Do I need one?" the answer is an emphatic "No". They're tools designed to solve particular problems, so you reach for them when you have those problems, rather than as a matter of course. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
