בתאריך יום ג׳, 21 בנוב׳ 2017, 19:36, מאת Chris Barker < chris.bar...@noaa.gov>:
> ... > And what's the use-case, really? beyond the use case for all sorts of > static typing... > I don't understand the question. The use case was explained before - people want to have better ways to reason about their programs. Statically. Why dismiss it as a non-usecase? It's helpful for both tools and humans. It was mentioned that there are related conventions in Python. Good point. But they are not as strong as the "convention" that tuples and strings cannot change, and this is useful in reasoning about code - in understanding the program, essentially. When I read "final int x = 5;" in Java, I don't have to think about it anymore - it's 5. When I read "X = 5" in Python, it might be a constant, but it might also be a misnomer, or something that used to be a constant, or a class reassigned. I still have to watch whether it will be changed, intentionally or accidentally, by this or other module. It does not even communicate intention in an unambiguous way. In my opinion, the inability to control mutation in Python is the biggest readability issue of the language (thank god monkey-patching is discouraged). I see why the proposal can be rejected, but I don't understand the "you don't gain anything" responses. There are significant gains there. Elazar
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
