I'm going to ask that people please try to keep this thread on-topic to the
question of using Unicode characters directly for things that we currently
use two ASCII characters to represent. Other ideas that spring up from this
question are totally welcome to be done as new threads of discussion.
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 6:42 PM MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
> On 2020-05-18 02:25, Greg Ewing wrote:
> > On 18/05/20 1:59 am, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> >> But even
> >> {(int): str} is a better type annotation for a function than
> >> Callable[[int], str].
> >
> > I don't agree -- it looks more like some kind of dict type, and
> > would be better reserved for that purpose.
> >
> >> And if we e.g. talk about making "->" a special operator which would
> >> allow it to appear in other contexts
> >
> > Or maybe we could leverage the new walrus operator and write
> >
> > str := (int)
> >
> It would be closer to the existing annotation if we could write:
>
> [int] -> str
> _______________________________________________
> 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/77OWDBQPQKDDQ3CGHUC4PY6ODI3LUBY3/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
_______________________________________________
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/BWFXZOADEX2ZEBJHOHHZIBX2LFR5AFBG/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
