On Jan 1, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Kay Schluehr wrote:
Good. There is still one issue. I understand that you don't want to
fix
the semantics of function annotations but to be usefull some
annotations are needed to express function types. Using those
consistently with the notation of the enhanced
On Jan 1, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
It's true that for the area to be explored, which I know you've been
doing, one first has to introduce an annotation scheme that can
then be
used by things like pylint. I'd like to see assertions about the
usefulness of such annotations
On Dec 31, 2006, at 4:26 AM, Kay Schluehr wrote:
I have two questions:
1) I don't understand the clause ('*' [tname] (',' tname ['=' test])*
in the grammar rule of typedargslist. Does it stem from another PEP?
Yes, PEP 3102 Keyword-only Arguments.
2) Is the func_annotation information
On Dec 31, 2006, at 7:54 AM, John Roth wrote:
Tony Lownds wrote:
Perhaps you are right and intersecting libraries will become an
issue.
Designing a solution in advance of the problems being evident seems
risky to me. What if the solution invented in a vacuum really is more
of a hindrance
First, it only handles functions/methods. Python FIT needs
metadata on properties and assignable/readable attributes
of all kinds. So in no sense is it a replacement. Parenthetically,
neither is the decorator facility, and for exactly the same reason.
I can't argue against docstrings and
(Note: PEPs in the 3xxx number range are intended for Python 3000)
PEP: 3107
Title: Function Annotations
Version: $Revision: 53169 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2006-12-27 20:59:16 -0800 (Wed, 27 Dec 2006) $
Author: Collin Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Tony Lownds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: Draft
On Dec 29, 2006, at 4:09 PM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
I think this rationale is very lacking and to weak for such a big
change to Python. I definitely like to see it expanded.
The reference links to two small libraries implementing type checking
using decorators and doc strings. None of which
