I made a proposal that Phillip was mostly okay with. What do other participants in the thread think? Would it move towards resolving this thread?<br><br>"In order for processors of function annotations to work interoperably,
they must use a common interpretation of objects used as annotations on
a particular function. For example, one might interpret string
annotations as docstrings. Another might interpet them as path segments
for a web framework. For this reason, function annotation processors
SHOULD avoid assigning processor-specific meanings to types defined
outside of the processor's framework. For example, a Django processor
could process annotations of a type defined in a Zope package, but
Zope's creators should be considered the authorities on the type's
meaning for the same reasons that they would be considered authorities
on the semantics of classes or methods in their packages. This implies
that the interpretation of built-in types would be controlled by
Python's developers and documented in Python's documentation. This is
just a best practice. Nothing in the language can or should enforce
this practice and there may be a few domains where there is a strong
argument for violating it (
e.g. an education environment where saving keystrokes may be more
important than easing interopability)."<br><br>"In
Python 3000, semantics will be attached to the following types:
basestring and its subtypes are to be used for documentation (though
they are not necessarily the exclusive source of documentation about
the type). List and its subtypes are to be used for attaching multiple
independent annotations."
<br><br> Paul Prescod<br><br>