On 6 September 2016 at 18:35, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 September 2016 at 01:33, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivs...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 6 September 2016 at 17:25, Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: > >> > >> The issue is not whether the checker can tell that the type of the > >> *expression* is int, but whether it is forced to use the type of the > >> *variable*. The current wording of PEP 526 strongly implies the latter. > > > > Mark, > > Could you please point to exact locations in the PEP text and propose an > > alternative wording, so that we will have a more concrete discussion. > > Rather than trying to work that out on the list, it may make the most > sense for Mark to put together a PR that rewords the parts of the PEP > that he sees as constraining typecheckers to restrict *usage* of a > variable based on its annotation, rather than just restricting future > bindings to it. > Thanks Nick, this is a good idea. Mark, I will be glad to discuss your PR to the master python/peps repo. -- Iavn
_______________________________________________ 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
