On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:01 AM, Ronan Lamy ronan.l...@gmail.com wrote:
* PEP484 hints are too high-level. Replacing an 'int' object with a
single machine word would be useful, but an 'int' annotation gives no
guarantee that it's correct (because Python 3 ints can have arbitrary
size and
Le 25/04/15 04:07, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 02:05:15AM +0100, Ronan Lamy wrote:
* Hints have no run-time effect. The interpreter cannot assume that they
are obeyed.
I know what you mean, but just for the record, annotations are runtime
inspectable, so people can (and
Le 24/04/15 19:45, Paul Sokolovsky a écrit :
Hello,
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:27:29 +0100
Ronan Lamy ronan.l...@gmail.com wrote:
PyPy's FAQ
has an explanation of why type hints are not for performance.
http://pypy.readthedocs.org/en/latest/faq.html#would-type-annotations-help-pypy-s-performance
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Ronan Lamy ronan.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 24/04/15 19:45, Paul Sokolovsky a écrit :
Hello,
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:27:29 +0100
Ronan Lamy ronan.l...@gmail.com wrote:
PyPy's FAQ
has an explanation of why type hints are not for performance.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 02:05:15AM +0100, Ronan Lamy wrote:
* Hints have no run-time effect. The interpreter cannot assume that they
are obeyed.
I know what you mean, but just for the record, annotations are runtime
inspectable, so people can (and probably have already started) to write
On 22 April 2015 at 03:03, Carol Willing willi...@willingconsulting.com wrote:
2. Clearly, great thought has been put into this PEP. If anyone has a good
analysis of the potential impact on Python 3 adoption, please do pass along.
I would be interested in reading the information.
I don't have
Le 23/04/15 14:55, Paul Sokolovsky a écrit :
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:15:44 -0400
Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
Also ask why no one used type specifier, they are possible since
Python 3.0 ?
Because it is the wrong way for Python.
That's an example of how perceptions differ.
Hello,
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:27:29 +0100
Ronan Lamy ronan.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Also ask why no one used type specifier, they are possible since
Python 3.0 ?
Because it is the wrong way for Python.
That's an example of how perceptions differ. In my list,
everyone(*) uses them -
lol @ the fact that the type hints are breaking github's syntax highlighter
:)
On 23 April 2015 at 14:44, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:48:58 +0200
Wolfgang Langner tds333+py...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Paul
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:25:30 +0100
Harry Percival harry.perci...@gmail.com wrote:
lol @ the fact that the type hints are breaking github's syntax
highlighter :)
What one can expect from software written in Ruby? ;-)
--
Best regards,
Paul
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:25:30PM +0100, Harry Percival wrote:
lol @ the fact that the type hints are breaking github's syntax highlighter
:)
That just tells us that Github's syntax highlighter has been broken for
over five years. Function annotations go back to Python 3.0, more than
five
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Given that even if Difference existed, and even if we had a predefined
type alias for Difference[Iterable[str], str], you' still have to remember
to mark up all those functions with that annotation. It almost sounds
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:15:44 -0400
Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
Also ask why no one used type specifier, they are possible since
Python 3.0 ?
Because it is the wrong way for Python.
That's an example of how perceptions differ. In my list, everyone(*)
uses them -
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:15:44 -0400
Daniel Holth dho...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
Also ask why no one used type specifier, they are possible since
Python 3.0 ?
Because it is the wrong way for Python.
That's
On 4/22/2015 8:45 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov
mailto:chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu
mailto:tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I was just thinking today that
* Wolfgang Langner tds333+py...@gmail.com [2015-04-23 10:43:52 +0200]:
2. Using it in the language as part of the function signature, my first
thought was oh good, then I changed my mind
to: oh it can be very ugly and unreadable, it is the wrong place.
Now I am against it, best is, if I
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:43:52 +0200
Wolfgang Langner tds333+py...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
Also ask why no one used type specifier, they are possible since
Python 3.0 ?
Because it is the wrong way for Python.
That's an example of how perceptions differ. In my list, everyone(*)
uses them -
Hi,
having a lot experience with Python beginners and people programming
Java/Python I have also an opinion about this. ;-)
First reaction was, oh good. Then I read every thread and comment about it,
looked at a lot internal code give all some time
and the result is:
I found a lot of code
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:43:52 +0200
Wolfgang Langner tds333+py...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
Also ask why no one used type specifier, they are possible since
Python 3.0 ?
Because it is the wrong way for
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:43:52 +0200
Wolfgang Langner tds333+py...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
Also ask why no one used type specifier, they are possible since
Python 3.0 ?
Because it is the wrong way for Python.
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:48:58 +0200
Wolfgang Langner tds333+py...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:43:52 +0200
Wolfgang Langner tds333+py...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
Also ask
On 4/21/2015 6:41 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
Well, it'll catch passing in a string instead of a sequence of strings
-- one of teh common and semi-insidious type errors I see a lot (at
least with newbies).
Oh wait, maybe it won't -- a string IS a sequence of strings. That's why
this is an
On 4/21/2015 6:50 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com
mailto:pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
It does, and hope people won't be caught in static typechecking
loop and consider other usages too.
I an interested is using type hints for
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
Oh wait, maybe it won't -- a string IS a sequence of strings. That's why
this is an insidious bug in the first place.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I was just thinking today
Oh wait, maybe it won't -- a string IS a sequence of strings. That's why
this is an insidious bug in the first place.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I was just thinking today that for this, typing needs a subtraction
(difference) operation in addition
On 21 April 2015 at 18:12, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
I expect that dealing with duck typing will be very high on the list
of priorities for the future. In the meantime, for this specific use-case,
you're probably not going to be able to statically check this type hint.
Your
On 21 April 2015 at 17:59, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
For me, PEP 484 is a stepping stone. Among the authors of PEP 484 there was
much discussion about duck typing, and mypy even has some limited support
for duck typing (I think you can still find it by searching the mypy code
On 4/20/2015 9:07 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Jack is not complaining only about *writing* code. He's complaining
about the effect this will have on code that we all are expected to
*read*.
For reading, good
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:10:06 -0700, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:17 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
wrote:
Please be respectful rather than inflammatory. If you read what I
wrote, I did not say that I was going to stop contributing, I
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:50:59 -0700
Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 04/21, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
And for example yesterday's big theme was people blackmailing that
they stop contributing to stdlib if annotations are in [...]
A volunteer's honest reaction is not
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Carol Willing
willi...@willingconsulting.com wrote:
Two areas of clarification would be helpful for me:
1. Optional: What does this really mean in practice? Am I opting in to
static type checking and type hints? Or must I opt out of type hints?
Having to
On 21 April 2015 at 17:55, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org wrote:
I view most of this thread as FUD. The fear is understandable, I'm trying to
tell people to stop panicing.
I think (hope!) everyone is clear that what's being expressed in this
thread is honest (emotional) reactions. There's a
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:28:45 -0700
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:43:38 -0400
R. David Murray
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:27:50 +0300
Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me try: MicroPython already uses type annotations for statically
typed functions. E.g.
def add(x:int, y:int):
return x + y
will translate the function to just 2 machine instructions.
That's quite nice.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:55:49 -, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org wrote:
We will not be putting type annotations anywhere in the stdlib or expecting
anyone else to maintain them there. That would never happen until tools
that are convincing enough in their utility for developers to _want_ to
On Apr 21, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
2. Clearly, great thought has been put into this PEP. If anyone has a good
analysis of the potential impact on Python 3 adoption, please do pass along.
I would be interested in reading the information.
I wish I had
On 4/21/15 9:17 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
Please be respectful rather than inflammatory.
Thank you David.
If you read what I
wrote, I did not say that I was going to stop contributing, I
specifically talked about that gut reaction being both emotional and
illogical. That doesn't make the
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:17:01 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:27:50 +0300, Paul Sokolovsky
pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
I was replying to Steven's message. Did you read it?
Yes. And I try to follow general course of discussion, as its hard
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:17 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
wrote:
Please be respectful rather than inflammatory. If you read what I
wrote, I did not say that I was going to stop contributing, I
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
At least nobody will be writing type hints in Cyrillic. :-)
Why not? It works just fine:
Список = list
def sum(x: Список):
... pass
...
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapira for some prior art.)
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 21:31:49 +0300, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:50:59 -0700 Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 04/21, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
And for example yesterday's big theme was people blackmailing that
they stop contributing to stdlib
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:43:38 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
+1 to this from me too. I'm afraid that means I'm -1 on the PEP.
I didn't write this in my earlier email because I wasn't sure about it,
but my gut reaction after reading Harry's email was if type annotations
are
On 21 April 2015 at 01:45, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
When you're writing a library, it can be a great help to provide type
annotations, because every application that uses your library can
benefit.
It can be a great help to whom? Not to me (the library author),
because I can't use
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:47:23 +1000
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Ironically, type hinting will *reduce* the need for intrusive,
anti-duck-testing explicit calls to isinstance() at runtime:
It won't, since as you pointed out yourself, type checks are purely
optional and entirely
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:56:15AM +0100, Rob Cliffe wrote:
(Adding a type hint that restricted the argument to say a
sequence of numbers turns out to be a mistake.
Let's find out how big a mistake it is with an test run.
py def sorter(alist: List[int]) - List[int]:
... return
On 21 April 2015 at 12:23, Gustavo Carneiro gjcarne...@gmail.com wrote:
Documentation is not checked. It often loses sync with the actual code.
Docs say one thing, code does another.
Agreed. I don't think anyone would disagree here. I'm talking from the
position of being a library author,
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:25:34PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
Anyway, I've not posted much to python-dev in quite a while, but this is
a topic that I would be kicking myself in 5-10 years time when I've had
to move to Javascript or insert new language here because everyone
else has
On 21 April 2015 at 13:47, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:56:15AM +0100, Rob Cliffe wrote:
(Adding a type hint that restricted the argument to say a
sequence of numbers turns out to be a mistake.
Let's find out how big a mistake it is with an
On 21 April 2015 at 10:10, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point, you may want to just stop caring about the exact type.
Part of the point of gradual typing is that you can short-cut a lot of
this. And quite frankly, this isn't really helping anything. Just skip
it and say that
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Cory Benfield c...@lukasa.co.uk wrote:
On 21 April 2015 at 01:45, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
When you're writing a library, it can be a great help to provide type
annotations, because every application that uses your library can
benefit.
It can be
On 21 April 2015 at 15:31, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Granted, there are some
vague areas - how many functions take a file-like object, and are
they all the same? - but between MyPy types and the abstract base
types that already exist, there are plenty of ways to formalize duck
On Apr 20 2015, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it'd be of value to have a quick code stripper that takes away
all the annotations, plus any other junk/framing that you're not
interested in, and gives you something you can browse in a text
editor?
If you need to preprocess your
On 20/04/2015 20:09, Paul Moore wrote:
On 20 April 2015 at 19:41, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
tldr; type hints in python source are scary. Would reserving them for stub
files be better?
I think so. I think PEP 8 should require stub files for stdlib modules and
strongly encourage them
Le 21/04/2015 15:50, Paul Sokolovsky a écrit :
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:08:27 +0200
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
[]
Because the user might not run the type checker, obviously. To quote
you: When we say that type checking is optional, we mean it.
You can't at the
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Cory Benfield c...@lukasa.co.uk wrote:
On 21 April 2015 at 15:31, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Granted, there are some
vague areas - how many functions take a file-like object, and are
they all the same? - but between MyPy types and the abstract base
Hey, I just wanted to say to everyone, thanks for being so patient and
willing to engage with this discussion, despite my not having done my
research and read the (substantial) prior discussion on the topic. Here it
is (or at least, some of it!) for any other newcomers:
On 20/04/2015 19:30, Harry Percival wrote:
Hi all,
tldr; type hints in python source are scary. Would reserving them for
stub files be better?
I was trying to find Jack's original post as I think his summary is
excellent and aligns well with where I think I'm coming from on this:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 03:08:27PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 22:47:23 +1000
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Ironically, type hinting will *reduce* the need for intrusive,
anti-duck-testing explicit calls to isinstance() at runtime:
It won't, since as
So. This is how you try and get me to care about Python 3. Can't speak
for others, but this does the opposite for me. This makes me ecstatic
that Python 2 has a nearly-frozen api.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:56:15 +0100
Rob Cliffe rob.cli...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 21/04/2015 10:33, Cory Benfield wrote:
On 21 April 2015 at 10:10, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point, you may want to just stop caring about the exact
type. Part of the point of
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:08:27 +0200
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
[]
Because the user might not run the type checker, obviously. To quote
you: When we say that type checking is optional, we mean it.
You can't at the same time point out that type checking has no
power or
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Arnaud Delobelle arno...@gmail.com wrote:
If people constantly get told by their editor / IDE that they are calling
function with the wrong argument types, what are they going to do? They may
start adopting the same approach as in Java / C++ etc... where
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:16:19 +1000
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
I could keep going, but I hope I've made my point.
I don't think so. Just because other languages are looking at it
doesn't mean it will end up successful. It means it's an interesting
idea, that's all.
A litmus
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 at 09:59 Cory Benfield c...@lukasa.co.uk wrote:
[...]
Further, Python's type system is not sufficiently flexible to allow
library authors to adequately specify the types their code actually
works on. I need to be able to talk about interfaces, because
interfaces are the
On Apr 21, 2015, at 01:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Putting the type information in a stub file is an exponentially more distant
fourth best, or to put it another way, *the worst* solution for where to put
type hints. Not only do you Repeat Yourself with the name of the parameter,
but also the
On 20/04/2015 19:30, Harry Percival wrote:
Hi all,
tldr; type hints in python source are scary. Would reserving them for
stub files be better?
I think Jack's summary of this is excellent and aligns well with where I
think I'm coming from on this:
On 21/04/2015 10:33, Cory Benfield wrote:
On 21 April 2015 at 10:10, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point, you may want to just stop caring about the exact type.
Part of the point of gradual typing is that you can short-cut a lot of
this. And quite frankly, this isn't really
On 21 April 2015 at 11:56, Rob Cliffe rob.cli...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 21/04/2015 10:33, Cory Benfield wrote:
On 21 April 2015 at 10:10, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com
ros...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point, you may want to just stop caring about the exact type.
Part of the point of
On 20/04/2015 20:09, Paul Moore wrote:
On 20 April 2015 at 19:41, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
tldr; type hints in python source are scary. Would reserving them for stub
files be better?
I think so. I think PEP 8 should require stub files for stdlib modules and
strongly encourage them
On 21/04/2015 12:23, Gustavo Carneiro wrote:
Well,
(i) can be done with good documentation (docstrings etc.).
Documentation is not checked. It often loses sync with the actual
code. Docs say one thing, code does another.
That certainly something that could be fixed by formalising
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 01:09:52 +1000, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
def incremental_parser(input: FileLike) - List[Token]:
tokens = []
data =
while True:
if not data:
data = input.read(64)
token = Token(data[0]); data = data[1:]
while
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:11:51 +0200
Antoine Pitrou anto...@python.org wrote:
[]
You can't at the same time point out that type checking has no
power or control over runtime behaviour, and then claim that type
checking makes runtime behaviour (for example, ability to accept or
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:05:59 -0700
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
On Apr 20 2015, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it'd be of value to have a quick code stripper that takes
away all the annotations, plus any other junk/framing that you're
not interested in, and
On 21 April 2015 at 16:09, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Pretty accurate, yeah. Here's how I see it:
def incremental_parser(input: FileLike) - List[Token]:
tokens = []
data =
while True:
if not data:
data = input.read(64)
token =
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Pretty accurate, yeah. Here's how I see it:
def incremental_parser(input: FileLike) - List[Token]:
tokens = []
data =
while True:
if not data:
data = input.read(64)
(Gmail messed up the attributions - apologies if I didn't fix them up
correctly).
21 April 2015 at 19:55, Łukasz Langa luk...@langa.pl wrote:
On Apr 21, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
2. Clearly, great thought has been put into this PEP. If anyone has a good
On 22 April 2015 at 04:28, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:43:38 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
+1 to this from me too. I'm afraid that means I'm -1 on the PEP.
On 22 April 2015 at 08:26, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
In the end this should be up to you and the reviewers, but for such a
venerable module like unittest I'd be hesitant to be an early adopter. I'd
also expect that much of unittest is too dynamic in nature to benefit from
type
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Cory Benfield c...@lukasa.co.uk wrote:
It seems like the only place the type annotations will get used is in
relatively trivial cases where the types are obvious anyway. I don't
deny that *some* bugs will be caught, but I suspect they'll
overwhelmingly be
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
It does, and hope people won't be caught in static typechecking
loop and consider other usages too.
Im confused -- from the bit I've been skimming the discussion, over on
python-ideas, and now here, is that this is all
Thank you Jack.
Jack: I hate code and I want as little of it as possible in our product
I love that quote -- and I ALWAYS use it when I teach newbies Python. It's
kind of the point of Python -- you can get a lot done by writing very
little code.
I'm still confused about what all this type
Cory Benfield c...@lukasa.co.uk
python-dev@python.org python-dev@python.org
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Cory Benfield c...@lukasa.co.uk wrote:
I'm talking from the position of being a library author, where supporting
versions of Python lower than 3.5 will be a reality for at least 5 more
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 08:37:28PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Jack Diederich jackd...@gmail.com wrote:
Twelve years ago a wise man said to me I suggest that you also propose a
new name for the resulting language
The barrage of FUD makes me feel like
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:28:45 -0700
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:43:38 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
+1 to this from me too. I'm afraid that means I'm -1 on
On 04/21, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
And for example yesterday's big theme was people blackmailing that they
stop contributing to stdlib if annotations are in [...]
A volunteer's honest reaction is not blackmail, and categorizing it as such
is not helpful to the discussion.
--
~Ethan~
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:50 AM Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:43:38 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
+1 to this from me too. I'm afraid that means I'm -1 on the PEP.
I didn't write this in my earlier email because I wasn't sure about
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Cory Benfield c...@lukasa.co.uk wrote:
The correct specification is read method with this type signature
and seek method with this type signature. I would even be prepared
to waive the type signatures on read and seek, given that enforcing
the type hinting on
On Apr 21 2015, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:05:59 -0700
Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
On Apr 20 2015, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it'd be of value to have a quick code stripper that takes
away all the annotations, plus
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:17 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
wrote:
Please be respectful rather than inflammatory. If you read what I
wrote, I did not say that I was going to stop contributing, I
specifically talked about that gut reaction being both emotional and
illogical. That
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 03:51:05PM +0100, Cory Benfield wrote:
On 21 April 2015 at 15:31, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Granted, there are some
vague areas - how many functions take a file-like object, and are
they all the same? - but between MyPy types and the abstract base
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net
wrote:
On 22 April 2015 at 04:28, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Until some point in a possible but distant future when we're all thinking
back fondly about the argument we're currently having, it will be the
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:27:50 +0300, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com wrote:
I was replying to Steven's message. Did you read it?
Yes. And I try to follow general course of discussion, as its hard to
follow individual sub-threads. And for example yesterday's big theme
was people
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:43:38 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
+1 to this from me too. I'm afraid that means I'm -1 on the PEP.
I didn't write this in my earlier email because I wasn't sure about
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Harry Percival harry.perci...@gmail.com
wrote:
@Lukasz:
Of course you're right, ugly is a matter of perspective, and I'm sure I
could grow to love them, and they might evolve into a more polished
direction
they start to read more transparently after a
exactly. yay stub files! we all agree! everyone loves them! boo type
annotations inline in python source. only some people love them. and even
then, only after a while, and only tentatively... and some people fear
them, mightily...
On 20 April 2015 at 23:14, Łukasz Langa luk...@langa.pl
So I guess the main difference is that type annotations in stub files
wouldn't be available at runtime? Ie, they wouldn't magically appear in
__annotations__ (unless the python interpreter itself started to evaluate
stub files too)
On 20 April 2015 at 22:02, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org
I hate stub files. [...] in my opinion, [it] just about guarantees a
maintenance burden that will fall by the side of the road.
I'm not so pessimistic. It's not like documentation or docstrings or
comments -- the whole point is that it should be very easy to have an
automated check for whether
I wrote a longer response and then realized it didn't really add much to
the discussion. So let me be short: type annotations do *not* appeal to
me, and I am not looking forward to the cognitive overhead of dealing
with them. Perhaps I will eventually grow to like them if the tools
that use them
Twelve years ago a wise man said to me I suggest that you also propose a
new name for the resulting language
I talked with many of you at PyCon about the costs of PEP 484. There are
plenty of people who have done a fine job promoting the benefits.
* It is not optional. Please stop saying that.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net
wrote:
On 21 April 2015 at 08:10, Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com wrote:
While it helps, this sort of best-practice is still unsettled (and
apparently not obvious). In the short term it would make more
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
