On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi
wrote:
>
> At some point it was proposed to distinguish two things: types (static)
> and classes (runtime).
> I don't think we need more fine grained terminology here.
>
>
Yeah, well I was trying to wrap my head around this runtime vs static
th
At some point it was proposed to distinguish two things: types (static) and
classes (runtime).
I don't think we need more fine grained terminology here.
--
Ivan
On 15 November 2017 at 17:54, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Koos Zevenhoven
> wrote:
> [..]
>
>> What d
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
[..]
> What do we call such a "type"? Maybe we have both "concrete" and "strictly
> concrete" types. Perhaps we also have both "abstract" and "strictly
> abstract" types. An ABC with some concrete default implementations might
> then be both
Here are some thoughts––maybe even a proposal––for type-related
terminology, because clear terminology makes discussion and reasoning
easier, and helps avoid errors.
(And related to the PEP 560 thread, the question of what should go into
class attributes like __bases__).
Terminology regarding typ
