<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/14/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Guido van Rossum</b> <<a href="mailto:guido@python.org">guido@python.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Haven't I said that the whole time? I *thought* that Collin's PEP<br>steered clear from the topic too. At the same time, does this preclude<br>having some kind of "default" type notation in the standard library?
</blockquote><div><br>The PEP steered TOO far of this topic. If it is total free-for-all then when and if we do come up with a standard syntax (whether in 2006 or 2010) it will conflict with deployed code that used the same syntax to mean something different then the standard. And even if there is never, ever, going to be a standard, it must be possible for tools reading the annotations to know whether the user intended their markup to conform to metadata-syntax 1, where "int" means "32 bit int" or metadata syntax 2 where it means "arbitrary sized int". Similarly, they must know whether the annotater intended to use metadata syntax 1 where "tuple" means "fixed size, heterogenous" or syntax 2 where it means "immutable list".
<br><br>Finally, there must be a standard way for attaching more than one annotation to a single parameter. The PEP did not define a syntax for that.<br><br>I think that there must be enough standardized infrastructure that annotation processors can recognize the annotations that are applicable to them and act on them, even if the user has chosen to use more than one annotation scheme.
<br><br> Paul Prescod<br><br></div></div>