On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 08:04:44AM -0700, Christopher Barker wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 6:08 AM Franklin? Lee <leewangzhong+pyt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The proposed feature is for expressing type relations, which only > > matters when you care about types. The feature will only be useful > > when you care about types. The syntax will only help/hurt readability > > when the code cares about types. > > > > And Python programmers rarely care about types -- that's why we use Python.d
I'm pretty sure that Python programmers *frequently* care about types. I know I do. How else do you avoid TypeErrors and AttributeErrors, if you don't care what type of data you're using? What they might not be doing is *explicitly* type-checking using isinstance or issubclass, but that doesn't mean they don't care about types. Whether we duck-type, or LBYL with an explicit test, or EAPF with a try...except block, or just rely on the caller never passing the wrong thing to our functions, we still care about types. -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/AJUISUKALQYUZMOK6L3P77FBALA2E4QQ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
