On 8/14/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Collin Winter</b> <<a href="mailto:collinw@gmail.com">collinw@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Because not having standardised meanings at the same time as the<br>feature becomes available says to developers, "don't use the built-in<br>types in your annotations because we might give them a meaning<br>later...or maybe we won't...but in the meantime, you're going to need
<br>to invent new spellings for lists, tuples, dicts, sets, strings, just<br>in case". As someone writing an annotation consumer, that comes across<br>as an incredibly arbitrary decision that forces me to do a lot of
<br>extra work.</blockquote><div><br>No, you aren't going to have to invent new spellings. As per my previous email, this should be allowed:<br><br>def myfunc( NumTuples: [typepackage1(tuple(int)),
<br> typepackage2("tuple(Number+))")<div>]):...<br><br>All you need to do is declare the fact that you are using the built-in types in a non-standard way by wrapping them in your own annotation constructor.
<br><br> Paul Prescod<br><br></div></div></div>