On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 2:19 PM firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
April 12, 2021 4:59 PM, "Brett Cannon" email@example.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 3:01 AM Hugh Fisher firstname.lastname@example.org
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:31:12 -0700 From: Barry Warsaw email@example.com Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: PEP 647 Accepted
This is something the SC has been musing about, but as it’s not a
fully formed idea, I’m a little
hesitant to bring it up. That said, it’s somewhat relevant: We wonder
if it may be time to in a
sense separate the typing syntax from Python’s regular syntax.
TypeGuards are a case where if
typing had more flexibility to adopt syntax that wasn’t strictly legal
“normal” Python, maybe
something more intuitive could have been proposed. I wonder if the
typing-sig has discussed this
possibility (in the future, of course)?
[ munch ]
Agreed. It’s interesting that PEP 593 proposes a different approach to
enriching the typing
system. Typing itself is becoming a little ecosystem of its own, and
given that many Python users
are still not fully embracing typing, maybe continuing to tie the
typing syntax to Python syntax is
starting to strain.
I would really like to see either "Typed Python" become a different
language, or progress to building type checking into the CPython
itself. (Python 4 seems to me the obvious release.) The current halfway
is confusing and slightly ridiculous.
Please don't denigrate the hard work people have put in to even bring
forward the idea of typing in
Python by saying it's "slightly ridiculous".
Aren't people allowed to have their own opinions?
Yes, of course.
Please, I hate to see this list descend further and further into such knee-jerk reactions.
It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction. I did take the time to think about replying.
If criticism of any current implementation of any construct becomes off-limits is automatically classed as "denigrating", there is no reason for this list to exist. You might not agreed with the criticism, but you should at least be open to discussion.
And I didn't try to shut down the discussion. My point was not about the intent of the message, but how that message was delivered. Being considerate and acknowledging people's time and effort is important and I don't think saying something is "ridiculous" does that.
Had the sentences ended at "confusing" or said something like "I don't think it's as optimal as it could be" or "I think it could be better" are all fine. But saying that the current approach is "arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : absurd, preposterous" as defined by Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridiculous is not necessary to make the point; it could have been phrased in such a way as to be a bit more respectful to those who have put in the time and effort to get things to where they are.