On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 11:49 AM Gregory P. Smith <greg@krypto.org> wrote:
*TL;DR of my TL;DR* - Not conveying bool-ness directly in the return annotation is my only complaint. A BoolTypeGuard spelling would alleviate that. I'm +0.3 now. Otherwise I elaborate on other guarding options and note a few additional Rejected/Postponed/Deferred Ideas sections that the PEP should mention as currently out of scope: Unconditional guards, multiple guarded parameters, and type mutators. Along the way I work my way towards suggestions for those, but I think they don't belong in _this_ PEP and could serve as input for future ones if/when desired.
Thanks for having an open mind. We should try to find a name that conveys the boolean-ness to casual readers. But I note that "naming is hard" and there are other aspects that already convey the boolean-ness (e.g. the naming convention starting with 'is', and the presence of 'return True' in the body :-), and I don't think that the proposed 'BoolTypeGuard' adds readability. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-c...>