On 8/16/06, <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;">
I'd be perfectly happy to go back to talking about "type annotations",<br>rather than the more general "function annotations", especially since<br>most of the discussion thus far has been about how to multiple things
<br>with annotations at the same time. Restricting annotations to type<br>information would be fine by me.</blockquote><div><br>I don't understand why we would want to go backwards. You wrote a PEP. We haven't suggested any major technical changes to it, rather just a few guidelines. How would restricting the domain of the PEP solve any issues about dynamicity?
<br><br>By the way, I think it may be naive to presume that there is only one relevant type system. People may well want to establish mappings from their types to programming language types. For example, to COM types, .NET types and Java types. 80% of these may be inferencable from platform-independent declarations but the other 20% may require a second layer of platform-specific type declarations.
<br><br>Paul Prescod<br><br></div></div>