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;">
On 8/14/06, Paul Prescod <<a href="mailto:paul@prescod.net">paul@prescod.net</a>> wrote:<br>> There are three issues: first, we need to RESERVE the types for<br>> standardization by Guido and crew.<br><br>You're just pushing the decision off to someone else. Regardless of
<br>who makes it, decisions involving the built-in types are going to make<br>some group unhappy. </blockquote><div><br>Yes, I know. I spent about a month of my life going through the same process back around 2003. </div>
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> Second, we can decide to do the standardization at any point.<br><br>Um, "at any point"? You mean it's conceivable that this
<br>standardisation could come *after* Python ships with function<br>annotations?</blockquote><div><br>Sure. Why not?<br><br>All I'm saying is that the "function annotations" PEP should not depend on the "function annotations for static type declarations" PEP. That was implicit in your original pre-PEP!
<br><br>If the "static type declarations PEP" misses the Python 3000 deadline then the function annotations feature is still valuable. The former could be used as a testbed for the latter:<br><br>def myfunc( NumTuples: [typepackage1(tuple(Number)),
<br> typepackage2("tuple(Number+))"]):...<br><br> Paul Prescod<br><br></div></div>