I also like that one, both more intuitive than current syntax I think.
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, 11:25 Guido van Rossum, wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:42 Thiago Carvalho D' Ávila <
> thiagocav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The idea here is to use the same operator already used to type-hint the
>> return of functions `->` to define the return of a Callable.
>>
>> * Current syntax:
>>
>> Callable[[ArgumentList], ReturnType]
>>
>> eg.
>>
>> def x(method: Callable[[int, dict], None]) -> None:
>> pass
>>
>> * Proposed syntax:
>>
>> Callable[ArgumentList] -> ReturnType
>>
>> eg.
>>
>> def x(method: Callable[int, dict] -> None) -> None:
>> pass
>>
>
> Why not just ‘(int, dict) -> None’?
>
> Do you think this is more intuitive? Is it viable?
>>
>
> Definitively more intuitive. With the new PEG parser it *may* be viable.
>
> However it may make it harder in the future to introduce ‘(x, y) -> x+y’
> as a shorthand for lambda, which has also been proposed.
>
> I wouldn’t rush anything.
>
> —Guido
> --
> --Guido (mobile)
>
___
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/T35CXY7DQIMSU3HB727VQH36B7MP3MD4/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
