On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:41 PM Marko Ristin-Kaufmann <marko.ris...@gmail.com> wrote: > Next Steps? > I personally doubt that we are enough people to form a party to push for a > change in the language. A standardized library seems to me like a realizable > compromise given the state of the discussion on this mail list. > > Before we organize a collective to write a proposal to standardize the > library, I would suggest that a couple of other interested teams adopt > icontract, apply it to their code bases and report their experiences on this > mail list. I hope that 2-3 reports would be insightful enough to either > convince other people that contracts in python are worth standardizing (and > highlight missing features yet to be implemented) or provide solid material > to discard the endeavor at the current moment. >
For the sake of those of us who REALLY don't feel like diving back into the extensive threads on this subject, can you please summarize the benefits of having this in the stdlib rather than as a third-party library? Also - have you benchmarked the performance cost of adding contracts? Particularly: if you're planning to contractify the stdlib, what is the impact on startup performance? ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
