On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Does anyone here use function annotations? If so, what do you use them
for?
I've used them a little when converting Python to Cython, though I
readily admit that I have no idea if what Cython accepts as a type
The BDFL Guido van Rossum is considering optional static typing (ish) for
Python 3.5:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-August/028618.html
Does anyone here use function annotations? If so, what do you use them
for?
--
Steven
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo
Kay Schluehr wrote:
On Jan 30, 12:38 am, Wildemar Wildenburger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python has a JIT right no
You mean in the Java-sense (outputting native machine code)?
/W
Sure.
http://psyco.sourceforge.net/
Oh, switcheroo! :)
/W
--
Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would just like to thank you for reminding me about what losers
hang out perpetually on sites like this one, thinking they are in
some kind of real community. Being reminded of that will help
prevent me from becoming such a loser myself. No, I didn't say
On Jan 28, 2008 10:31 AM, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:00 pm, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 27, 2:49 pm, André [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps this:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/mightbe
relevant?
André
Thanks. If I read
On 29 Jan., 17:00, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the difficulty of statically analyzing Python, and the
limitations you need to add for either static typing or type inference
to be practical, I think that the real future for faster Python code
is JIT, not static optimizations.
Python has a JIT right no
You mean in the Java-sense (outputting native machine code)?
/W
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 28 jan, 11:21, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:53 am, Bruno Desthuilliers bruno.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ P. a écrit :
On Jan 27, 5:03 pm, Paddy
If static typing is optional then a program written in a dynamic
language that passes such an automated static
On Jan 30, 12:38 am, Wildemar Wildenburger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python has a JIT right no
You mean in the Java-sense (outputting native machine code)?
/W
Sure.
http://psyco.sourceforge.net/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jan 28, 1:53 am, Bruno Desthuilliers bruno.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ P. a écrit :
On Jan 27, 5:03 pm, Paddy
If static typing is optional then a program written in a dynamic
language that passes such an automated static analysis of source code
would have to be a simple program
Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You might want to check into what the FAA allows in flight-critical
code, for example. I am certainly not an expert in that area, but I've
had a passing exposure to it. My understanding is that every possible
branch of the code must be fully and meticulously
Russ P. a écrit :
A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way back in 2000
for optional static typing in Python:
(snip)
In any case, optional static typing in Python would help tremendously
here. The hardest part of automated conversion of Python to a
statically typed language
Russ P. a écrit :
On Jan 27, 5:03 pm, Paddy
If static typing is optional then a program written in a dynamic
language that passes such an automated static analysis of source code
would have to be a simple program written in a simplistic way, and
also in a static style.
Yes, but for
On Jan 28, 11:42 am, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers bruno.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ P. a écrit : A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way
back in 2000
for optional static typing in Python:
(snip)
In any case
On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers bruno.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ P. a écrit : A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way
back in 2000
for optional static typing in Python:
(snip)
In any case, optional static typing in Python would help tremendously
here
Hallöchen!
Russ P. writes:
On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers bruno.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ P. a écrit : A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way
back in 2000
for optional static typing in Python:
(snip)
In any case, optional static typing in Python would
If Python could be automatically converted to Ada or Java, that could
potentially be used as a baseline for actual operational software.
That would capture the algorithmic details more reliably than recoding
from scratch by hand. But such an automatic conversion is not feasible
without
Russ P. a écrit :
On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers bruno.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ P. a écrit : A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way
back in 2000
for optional static typing in Python:
(snip)
In any case, optional static typing in Python would help
Russ P. wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers bruno.
Lord have mercy(tm).
What is that supposed to mean?
I suppose he wants to communicate that this is the nth time this
topic is brought up (n=infinite). Try searching the archives next
time.
Regards,
Björn
P.S.: IMHO, your
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:31:43 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
Unenforced static typing is somewhat pointless. If that
goes in, it should be enforced by implementations.
Luckily we don't get static typing. We get annotations which *can* be
used for type hints, checked by additional code. Can be
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:00 pm, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 27, 2:49 pm, André [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps this:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/mightbe
relevant?
André
Thanks. If I read this correctly, this PEP is on track for Python 3.0.
Wonderful!
On 27 Jan., 23:19, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way back in 2000
for optional static typing in Python:
http://www.python.org/~guido/static-typing
Two motivations were given:
-- faster code
-- better compile-time error
On Jan 28, 4:31 pm, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
[...]
Note that annotations do not provide explicit typing, AFAIK:
def f(x:int) - int: return x*2
is stricly equivalent to
def f(x): return x*2
f.__annotations__ = {'x':int, 'return':int}
You still
Wish you'd opted out of typing all that static.
BB
Russ P. wrote:
(...)
What is that supposed to mean?
Oh, I almost forgot. I'm supposed to sit here and be polite while
clueless dolts make wise cracks. Sorry, but I haven't yet mastered
that level of self-control.
I would just like to
A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way back in 2000
for optional static typing in Python:
http://www.python.org/~guido/static-typing
Two motivations were given:
-- faster code
-- better compile-time error detection
I'd like to suggest a third, which could help extend
On Jan 27, 6:19 pm, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way back in 2000
for optional static typing in Python:
http://www.python.org/~guido/static-typing
Two motivations were given:
-- faster code
-- better compile-time error
Russ P. pisze:
I noticed that Guido has expressed further interest in static typing
three or four years ago on his blog. Does anyone know the current
status of this project? Thanks.
I thought it was april fools joke?
--
Jarek Zgoda
http://zgodowie.org/
We read Knuth so you don't have to -
On Jan 27, 2:36 pm, Jarek Zgoda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ P. pisze:
I noticed that Guido has expressed further interest in static typing
three or four years ago on his blog. Does anyone know the current
status of this project? Thanks.
I thought it was april fools joke?
On January
On Jan 27, 2:49 pm, André [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:19 pm, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way back in 2000
for optional static typing in Python:
http://www.python.org/~guido/static-typing
Two motivations were given
Russ P. pisze:
I noticed that Guido has expressed further interest in static typing
three or four years ago on his blog. Does anyone know the current
status of this project? Thanks.
I thought it was april fools joke?
On January 21, 2000? Which calendar do you use?
Static typing in Python
On Jan 27, 3:08 pm, Jarek Zgoda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ P. pisze:
I noticed that Guido has expressed further interest in static typing
three or four years ago on his blog. Does anyone know the current
status of this project? Thanks.
I thought it was april fools joke?
On January
On Jan 27, 11:00 pm, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 27, 2:49 pm, André [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps this:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/mightbe
relevant?
André
Thanks. If I read this correctly, this PEP is on track for Python 3.0.
Wonderful!
Note that annotations
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:00 pm, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 27, 2:49 pm, André [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps this:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/mightbe
relevant?
André
Thanks. If I read this correctly, this PEP is on track for Python 3.0.
Wonderful!
On Jan 27, 9:13 pm, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 27, 3:08 pm, Jarek Zgoda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ P. pisze:
I noticed that Guido has expressed further interest in static typing
three or four years ago on his blog. Does anyone know the current
status of this project?
On Jan 27, 10:19 pm, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way back in 2000
for optional static typing in Python:
http://www.python.org/~guido/static-typing
Two motivations were given:
-- faster code
-- better compile-time error
On Jan 27, 5:03 pm, Paddy
If static typing is optional then a program written in a dynamic
language that passes such an automated static analysis of source code
would have to be a simple program written in a simplistic way, and
also in a static style.
Yes, but for safety-critical software
Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Perhaps this:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/might be relevant?
| Thanks. If I read this correctly, this PEP is on track for Python 3.0.
Wonderful!
If you experiment with static analysis using annotations, I am sure
Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would rather advocate such random test generation methods as being
more appropriate for testing software in safety critical systems when
the programming language is dynamic.
That method totally failed to find the Pentium FDIV bug, and they use
static proof
On Jan 28, 12:22 am, Arnaud Delobelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:00 pm, Russ P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 27, 2:49 pm, André [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps this:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/mightbe
relevant?
André
Thanks. If I read this correctly,
On Jan 28, 1:56 am, Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would rather advocate such random test generation methods as being
more appropriate for testing software in safety critical systems when
the programming language is dynamic.
That method
Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the complexity of current microprocessors i'm guessing that
their previous testing methods would be too good to just junk in
totality because the FDIV bug was not found. Similarly if they were
not using formal methods then it makes sense to add it too your
On Jan 28, 6:17 am, Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the complexity of current microprocessors i'm guessing that
their previous testing methods would be too good to just junk in
totality because the FDIV bug was not found. Similarly if they
Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fair enough. My main issue was against the notion that random testing
is the only thing necessary.
Sorry Paul if I may have given that impression, its just that when you
bring in random testing to a design that until then had only directed
tests you can
?
Optional static typing is listed as item # 3 in
PEP 3100 (Python 3.0 plans).
For a timeline, look at PEP 3000.
John Roth
Thanks very much,
Christian
--
Christian Convey
Computer Scientist,
Naval Undersea Warfare Centers
Newport, RI
(401) 832-6824
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://mail.python.org
Hi guys,
I'm looking at developing a somewhat complex system, and I think some
static typing will help me keep limit my confusion. I.e.:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=87182
Does anyone know if/when that feature may become part of Python?
Thanks very much,
Christian
--
Christian Convey a écrit :
Hi guys,
I'm looking at developing a somewhat complex system, and I think some
static typing will help me keep limit my confusion.
Then I think you're suffering from an alas too common delusion. Static
typing (at least declarative static typing) will only makes
Perhaps I'm deluded but I don't think so. I'll tell you my situation
and I'd appreciate your take on it...
I'm looking into the design a network simulator. The simulator has a
few requirements:
(1) I need to be able to swap in a variety of replacement components
during different
Christian Convey wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm looking at developing a somewhat complex system, and I think some
static typing will help me keep limit my confusion. I.e.:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=87182
Does anyone know if/when that feature may become part of Python?
Christian Convey a écrit :
Perhaps I'm deluded but I don't think so.
after what='having read the rest of the post'.
You are.
/after
I'll tell you my situation
and I'd appreciate your take on it...
I'm looking into the design a network simulator. The simulator has a
few requirements:
Christian Convey wrote:
Perhaps I'm deluded but I don't think so. I'll tell you my situation
and I'd appreciate your take on it...
I'm looking into the design a network simulator. The simulator has a
few requirements:
(1) I need to be able to swap in a variety of replacement components
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
I've always liked the (theoretical) idea that assertions (including of
course contracts) could be used as axioms used to optimize generated
code, rather than (necessarily) as a runtime burden. E.g. (and I don't
know of any implementation of this
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, John Roth wrote:
Guido has posted a second blog entry on the optional static typing
initiative.
I like this a lot better than the first.
Declarative approach is even more human-oriented than algorithmic one.
If Python is to support declarations, let it support declarative
John Roth wrote:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=86641
Nitpicking: I don't think he's necessarily in good company w.r.t. types
vs classes. Take Ada, for example. In Ada, a class is a set of types
(in particular, the type and all its subtypes), which is kind of the
opposite
Ryan == Ryan Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ryan I wrote a blog post this morning in which I briefly argue
Ryan using DbC and predicate based argument constraints instead
Ryan of static typing. Take a look
I took a look. The first impression is that there is too much stuff to
be
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
And you probably think Eiffel supports fully modular programming, as
I thought Objective CAML did. But Alex seems not to agree.
Rather, I would say it's Dr Van Roy and Dr Haridi who do not agree;
their definition of truly open programming being quite
Robert Kern wrote:
Starkiller, at least, can deal with cases where a variable might be
one
of a set of types and generates code for each of this set. Explicit
type
declarations can help keep these sets small and reduces the number of
times that Starkiller needs to fall back to PyObject_*
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quoth Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
...
| But then, the above criticism applies: if interface and implementation
| of a module are tightly coupled, you can't really do fully modular
| programming AND static
Neal D. Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just started learning about Haskell. I suggest looking at this for an
example.
A good intro: http://www.haskell.org/tutorial
I've always found that with Haskell, if I can get my program to
compile without error, it usually runs flawlessly.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote:
John Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
question: static typing is an answer. What's the question?
(That's a paraphrase.)
The answer that everyone seems to give is that it
prevents errors and clarifies the
Michael Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your proposition reminds me very much of Design by Contract, which is
a prominent feature of the Eiffel programming language. Considering
that Python is an interpreted language where type checking would
naturally occur at runtime, I think Design by
Michael Hobbs wrote:
I've always found that with Haskell, if I can get my program to
compile without error, it usually runs flawlessly. (Except for the
occasional off-by-one error. :-)
Then you need Scott and Dave's Programming Language -- SAD/PL.
By providing separate data types for even and odd
Luis M. Gonzalez wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Starkiller, at least, can deal with cases where a variable might be one
of a set of types and generates code for each of this set. Explicit type
declarations can help keep these sets small and reduces the number of
times that Starkiller needs to fall
Alex == Alex Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex I've always liked the (theoretical) idea that assertions
Alex (including of course contracts) could be used as axioms used
Alex to optimize generated code, rather than (necessarily) as a
Alex runtime burden. E.g. (and I don't
Scott David Daniels wrote:
Then you need Scott and Dave's Programming Language -- SAD/PL.
By providing separate data types for even and odd numbers, you can
avoid off-by-one errors ;-)
mmmhhh off by two-licious
--
Robin Becker
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:49:35 -0800, bearophileHUGS wrote:
Adding Optional Static Typing to Python looks like a quite complex
thing, but useful too:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=85551
I wrote a blog post this morning in which I briefly argue using DbC and
predicate based
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Mind you, I personally _like_ the concept of describing
an interface separately, even in a different language (Corba's IDL, say)
that's specialized for the task. But it doesn't seem to be all that
popular...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Mind you, I personally _like_ the concept of describing
an interface separately, even in a different language (Corba's IDL, say)
that's specialized for the task. But it
Luis M. Gonzalez wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Automatic type inferencing is great, but sometimes the inference is
object. Being able to supply more information about types helps
Starkiller keep the inferences tight and specific.
Hmm... I'm not an expert in this subject at all, but I think that when
Quoth Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
...
| But then, the above criticism applies: if interface and implementation
| of a module are tightly coupled, you can't really do fully modular
| programming AND static typing (forget type inferencing...).
|
| I beg
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
| making a really modular system work with static typing and inferencing
| is probably impossible; in practice, the type inferencer must examine
| all code, or a rather copious summary of it... it can't really work
| module by module in a nice, fully
, is the central question. If we have optional
static typing, can I get a performance enhancement out of it? If not,
why bother?
for documentation and 'crash early' purposes, I'd say.
Btw, why don't we rip out the approach of CL and some schemes that offer
optional typing ? (not that I understand how those work
I am assuming that optional type checking is being added for easier
debugging only. So if 'expects' are turned on , python raises
warnings(which do not halt the system) but not when they are turned
off. These will enable easier debugging for new people while not
affecting masters. Also,perhaps, it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Mind you, I personally _like_ the concept of describing
an interface separately, even in a different language (Corba's IDL, say)
that's specialized for the task. But it doesn't seem to be all that
popular... without such separation, modularity plus
Luis M. Gonzalez wrote:
I don't understand why this discussion on optional static typing came
up right at this moment.
As far as I know, it has been discussed many times in the past, and
there even was a SIG that simply died... but it seems that it never was
something of much interest to python
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adding Optional Static Typing to Python looks like a quite complex
thing, but useful too:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=85551
I have just a couple of notes:
Guido doesn't read this group; if you want him to read your notes, post
them as comments
John Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
question: static typing is an answer. What's the question?
(That's a paraphrase.)
The answer that everyone seems to give is that it
prevents errors and clarifies the program.
...
Most of the kinds of error that static typing is supposed
to catch
it.
LISP has type declarations. Everybody I know doing production work in
LISP uses them. It's the only way to get reasonable performance out of
LISP compiled code.
Which raises what, to me, is the central question. If we have optional
static typing, can I get a performance enhancement out
I've just started learning about Haskell. I suggest looking at this for an
example.
A good intro: http://www.haskell.org/tutorial
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Tim Churches wrote:
Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Roth wrote:
Rocco Moretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is, should Guido state TDD is the one true way to
program in Python., or should concessions be made in the language
design for those who don't drink the TDD Kool-aide.
Tim Churches wrote:
Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always thought the connotation was more that those who
drank the Kool-Aid were unthinking drones, following what
others told them to do.
I thought it was an allusion to The Electric Kool-Aid Acid test by Tom Wolfe - see
Hi.
Well i am a newbie to python and maybe not qualified enough to make a
comment on proposals to changes in python. My previous programming
experience has been in Java and C. So maybe you will forgive me if i
make any outlandish comments.
But anyway here goes:
I think instead what should be
(just like, say,
boo), that's a different issue. It also allows bounded genericity at
compile time (like, say, C++'s templates without the hassles), and
that's yet another (typeclasses are a great mechanism, btw).
Languages with really optional static typing can be found; I think the
premier
Mike Meyer wrote:
Which raises what, to me, is the central question. If we have optional
static typing, can I get a performance enhancement out of it? If not,
why bother?
I had some thoughts along the same lines, so I dug up PEP 246 and looked at how
it could be enhanced to potentially support
Rocco Moretti wrote:
...
Is there a group of people for whom static typing truly helps?
Yes. Python doesn't at present compile down to a binary executable. (Py2exe
don't really count since that's just tacking on a VM on the side (he says
dimissively regarding something he thinks is cool :) )
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: The ironic thing about all this is that it was
actually something called Flavor Aid, made by a
company called Jel Sert (http://www.jelsert.com),
and not Kool-Aid at all. What would be even funnier
is if the
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli):
...
| Haskell's a great language, but beware: its static typing is NOT
| optional -- it's rigorous. It can INFER types for you (just like, say,
| boo), that's a different issue. It also allows bounded genericity at
| compile time (like, say, C++'s
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli):
...
| Haskell's a great language, but beware: its static typing is NOT
| optional -- it's rigorous. It can INFER types for you (just like, say,
| boo), that's a different issue. It also allows bounded genericity at
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli):
| Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
| He didn't dwell much on it, but there was some mention of type
| inference, kind of as though that could be taken for granted.
| I guess this would necessarily be much more limited in scope
| than what Haskell
I don't understand why this discussion on optional static typing came
up right at this moment.
As far as I know, it has been discussed many times in the past, and
there even was a SIG that simply died... but it seems that it never was
something of much interest to python developers (that's my
Adding Optional Static Typing to Python looks like a quite complex
thing, but useful too:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=85551
I have just a couple of notes:
Boo (http://boo.codehaus.org/) is a different language, but I like its
as instead of : and -, to have:
def min
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adding Optional Static Typing to Python looks like a quite complex
thing, but useful too:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=85551
Thanks for pointing out that article by Guido van Rossum. Looks like it
just came out today. It is something that may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adding Optional Static Typing to Python looks like a quite complex
thing, but useful too:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=85551
One of the comments on Artima asks a rather profound
question: static typing is an answer
John Roth wrote:
One of the comments on Artima asks a rather profound
question: static typing is an answer. What's the question?
(That's a paraphrase.)
The answer that everyone seems to give is that it
prevents errors and clarifies the program.
shrug It might just be me, but I thought it was to
Doug Holton:
And there are some disadvantages to doing it this way.
It means Python is more flexible to use than Boo,
I've just suggested the *syntax* that I like more.
Bye,
Bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Rocco Moretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Roth wrote:
One of the comments on Artima asks a rather profound
question: static typing is an answer. What's the question?
(That's a paraphrase.)
The answer that everyone seems to give is that it
prevents errors and
John Roth wrote:
Rocco Moretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Looking at C, it's doubtful error prevention and program clarification
was a serious objective in the static typing system. It's more
reasonable to conclude that C is statically typed because it allows
the compiler to more easily allocate
John Roth wrote:
Rocco Moretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is, should Guido state TDD is the one true way to
program in Python., or should concessions be made in the language
design for those who don't drink the TDD Kool-aide.
Neither one. I hope you didn't mean that people
who
Hi folks,
This is an interesting new article (published today Dec. 23).
Guido discusses the possibility of adding optional static typing to
Python:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=85551
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Sorry... I just realized that somebody else already had started a
thread on this...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Roth wrote:
Rocco Moretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is, should Guido state TDD is the one true way to
program in Python., or should concessions be made in the language
design for those who don't drink the TDD Kool-aide.
100 matches
Mail list logo
