On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:36 PM Hugh Fisher wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:57:49 +1000
> > From: Chris Angelico
> > Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: Typing syntax and ecosystem, take 2
>
> >
> > You're advocating an approach that absolutely mandates running t
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:57:49 +1000
> From: Chris Angelico
> Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: Typing syntax and ecosystem, take 2
>
> You're advocating an approach that absolutely mandates running the
> type checker, but then caches the results in an executable file (the
> JS f
Hugh Fisher writes:
> There are a lot of programmers like me. Those languages I listed
> are widely used, and therefore we assume that if a Python language
> construct looks like something we've used before, it will work in
> the same way.
That's not very persuasive. When in London,
>
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:55:38 -0400
> From: Ned Batchelder
>
> In another message, you alluded to PEP 649 being a solution to run-time
> type checking. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something: type annotations
> never do type checking at runtime. As I understand it, PEP 649 is about
>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:47 AM Hugh Fisher wrote:
>
> > From: Ned Batchelder
> [ munch ]
> > This is very similar to statically typed languages. They also have two
> > steps:
> >
> > * There is the first step that checks the types but does not run the
> > program. In C/C++, this is the
On 4/13/21 7:40 PM, Hugh Fisher wrote:
From: Ned Batchelder
[ munch ]
This is very similar to statically typed languages. They also have two
steps:
* There is the first step that checks the types but does not run the
program. In C/C++, this is the compiler, in Python it is "mypy".
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:45 AM Hugh Fisher wrote:
> I don't want Python to be explicitly typed either. I'm happy with dynamic
> typing, and do not want to have to write even
> x : object
You don't. That's not the proposal. The proposals have ALL been about
gradual typing and inferred
> From: Ned Batchelder
[ munch ]
> This is very similar to statically typed languages. They also have two
> steps:
>
> * There is the first step that checks the types but does not run the
> program. In C/C++, this is the compiler, in Python it is "mypy".
> * There is the second step that
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 20:30, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
[ munch ]
> > As someone who has programmed in FORTRAN, Pascal, C/C++,
> > Java, and Go this is not at all what I consider reasonable.
>
> From the point of view of typing, you've programmed in one other
> language. ;-) (Maybe Go makes
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 18:43, Stéfane Fermigier wrote:
>
[ munch ]
>
> Python is, historically, a dynamically typed language, and gradual typing
> (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradual_typing) has been progressively
> added to it in the last decade or so. This is a legitimate approach,
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 12:09, Filipe Laíns wrote:
>
[ munch ]
>
> Python is not a typed language, it is a language with optional typing.
Well, it's a dynamically typed language. And yes I agree, I want typing
to remain optional. I am happy that I can write
x = 1
x = [ "hello", "world" ]
On Tue, 2021-04-13 at 09:20 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 03:09:28 +0100
> Filipe Laíns wrote:
> >
> > This is simply not a good point in itself, and on top of that it seems to
> > completely ignore that Python could be untyped,
>
> Python is definitely not untyped. It's
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 1:46 AM Hugh Fisher wrote:
> In any Python 3.6 or later, type
>
> >>> x : float = 1
> >>> isinstance(x, float)
>
> or replace the second line with
>
> >>> type(x)
>
> As someone who has programmed in FORTRAN, Pascal, C/C++,
> Java, and Go this is not at all
On 4/12/21 7:43 PM, Hugh Fisher wrote:
Having a type checker run before the Python interpreter in our
current day continuous build/integration environment adds a
second step
This is very similar to statically typed languages. They also have two
steps:
* There is the first step that checks
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 03:09:28 +0100
Filipe Laíns wrote:
>
> This is simply not a good point in itself, and on top of that it seems to
> completely ignore that Python could be untyped,
Python is definitely not untyped. It's strongly typed. Its typing is
just dynamic and isn't explicitly spelled
On Tue, 2021-04-13 at 09:43 +1000, Hugh Fisher wrote:
> In any Python 3.6 or later, type
>
> >>> x : float = 1
> >>> isinstance(x, float)
>
> or replace the second line with
>
> >>> type(x)
>
> As someone who has programmed in FORTRAN, Pascal, C/C++,
> Java, and Go this is not at
16 matches
Mail list logo
