On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:44:45PM +0100, Cory Benfield wrote:
> On 24 April 2015 at 15:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > If the type hints are wrong, there are two errors: false positives, when
> > code which should be allowed is flagged as a type error; and false
> > negatives, when code which s
On 24 April 2015 at 15:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> If the type hints are wrong, there are two errors: false positives, when
> code which should be allowed is flagged as a type error; and false
> negatives, when code which should be flagged as an error is not.
> Ideally, there should be no false
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:26:14AM -0500, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> On a separate thread Cory provided an example of what the hints would look
> like for *part* of one function in the requests public functional API.
> While our API is outwardly simple, the values we accept in certain cases
> are actua
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Ian Cordasco
wrote:
> As the other maintainer of requests, I think having hints *might* help
> some developers, but looking at what Cory generated (which looks to be
> valid), I'm wondering about something else with Type Hints.
>
> I've heard several people say "J
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Skip Montanaro
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
>
>> For Requests, it looks like it may be better not to have stubs at all.
>
>
> Can you expand on this? Why would Requests be any different than any other
> module/package?
>
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Skip Montanaro
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Ian Cordasco > wrote:
>
>> On a separate thread Cory provided an example of what the hints would
>> look like for *part* of one function in the requests public functional API.
>>
>
> Thanks. That enco
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Skip Montanaro
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
>
>> For Requests, it looks like it may be better not to have stubs at all.
>
>
> Can you expand on this? Why would Requests be any different than any other
> module/package?
>
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> For Requests, it looks like it may be better not to have stubs at all.
Can you expand on this? Why would Requests be any different than any other
module/package?
As for versioning, I think stub files would absolutely have to declare t
I definitely think that we shouldn't jump the gun here and tread carefully.
Both Marc-André and Cory brought up good things to watch out for.
For closed-source software the only way to obtain stubs is presumably from
the author, if they care. As Gregory Smith said in another thread, the
tooling wi
On 22 April 2015 at 11:46, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Unlike with translations, where missing or poor ones don't have
> much effect on the usefulness of the software, a type checker
> would complain loudly and probably show lots of false positives
> (if you read a type bug as "positive"), causing the
On 21.04.2015 18:08, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:33 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
>> On 21.04.2015 05:37, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Jack Diederich
>> wrote:
* Uploading stubs for other people's code is a terrible idea. Who do I
c
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:33 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 21.04.2015 05:37, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Jack Diederich
> wrote:
> >> * Uploading stubs for other people's code is a terrible idea. Who do I
> >> contact when I update the interface to my library? T
On 21.04.2015 05:37, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Jack Diederich wrote:
>> * Uploading stubs for other people's code is a terrible idea. Who do I
>> contact when I update the interface to my library? The random Joe who
>> "helped" by uploading annotations three months
13 matches
Mail list logo
