On 12/18/2011 8:35, Eelco wrote: > No, its not type *checking*, its type *declaration*. I tried to go to > great lengths to point that out, but it appears I did not do a very > good job :). Type declaration is exactly what I want, and insofar this > syntax has already found adoptation elsewhere, ill consider that a > plus. You say it's found adoption elsewhere, but I think it's that adoption which makes it a *bad* idea, because it does something entirely different in those situations. Other languages are using that syntax for something which is statically checked -- you are proposing that syntax for a dynamic conversion.
look pretty familiar... (Not to mention if you just omit the type from the examples above you need another way to distinguish between args and kwargs.) > Yes, one could opt for a syntax where the collection type is optional > and a sensible default is chosen, But to me that would largely defeat > the point; I very much like the added verbosity and explicitness. args- > tuple and kwargs-dict; that just has a much better ring to it than > star-star-kwargs, or whatever other cryptic symbol you use. My problem with it is that it in some sense is forcing me to make a decision I don't care about. Yes, what we have now is less flexible, but I have *never* said "man, I wish this *args parameter were a list instead of a tuple". So at least for me, making me say "args::tuple" or "@tuple args" or whatever is just changing the syntax a bit and adding several more characters for me to type. Evan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
