Re: optional static typing for Python

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 -- http://mail.python.org/ma

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

On 28 jan, 11:21, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 28, 1:53 am, Bruno Desthuilliers > > > [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 aut

Re: optional static typing for Python

> 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

Re: optional static typing for Python

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 optimizat

Re: optional static typing for Python

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? > >>

Re: optional static typing for Python

"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

Re: optional static typing for Python

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}

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

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 l

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

Russ P. wrote: > On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers > 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 flame i

Re: optional static typing for Python

Russ P. a écrit : > On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers [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

Re: optional static typing for Python

> 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 ex

Re: optional static typing for Python

Hallöchen! Russ P. writes: > On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers [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 Pytho

Re: optional static typing for Python

On Jan 28, 11:42 am, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers > > > [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

Re: optional static typing for Python

On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers 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. The hardest part o

Re: optional static typing for Python

On Jan 28, 1:53 am, Bruno Desthuilliers 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 written i

Re: optional static typing for Python

"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 metic

Re: optional static typing for Python

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, bu

Re: optional static typing for Python

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 lan

Re: optional static typing for Python

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 y

Re: optional static typing for Python

On Jan 28, 6:17 am, Paul Rubin 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

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

On Jan 28, 1:56 am, Paul Rubin 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 m

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

"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 sur

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

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-tim

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

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 > > >>>

Re: optional static typing for Python

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 t

Re: optional static typing for 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 jo

Re: optional static typing for Python

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 typin

Re: optional static typing for Python

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 motiv

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

Re: optional static typing for Python

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

optional static typing for Python

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 P