On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 May 2017 at 00:58, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > [...] > > Thank you for very detailed answers! I have practically nothing to add. > It seems to me that most of the Kevin's questions stem from unnecessary > focus > on runtime type checking. Here are two ideas about how to fix this: > > * Add the word "static" somewhere in the PEP title. > So the title could become "Protocols: Static structural subtyping (duck typing)" -- long, but not record-setting. * Add a short note at the start mentioning this is an extension of the type > system proposed in PEP 484 and recommending to read PEP 484 first. > Hm, the Abstract already spells that out. I suspect that many people react to the discussion without first reading the PEP itself (I do this myself :-). The only thing that could possibly be confusing about the abstract is that it claims to specify "static and runtime semantics" -- but that's reasonable, since the runtime semantics must somehow be specified even if they're minimal. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido <http://python.org/%7Eguido>)
_______________________________________________ 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
