On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 12:59:38AM +0100, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:I posted this suggestion earlier in the callable type syntax discussion, at which point it was completely ignored. Possibly because it’s a really stupid idea, but let me post it again on the off chance that it isn’t a stupid idea but was overlooked.> If I can make a wild suggestion: why not create a little language> for type specifications?
Any time we are tempted to prefix a question with "Why not ...", the
question is backwards. The right question is, "why should we ...".
Python is 30 years old and mature, with a HUGE ecosystem of users,
libraries, tooling, etc. It is far, far easier to get changes wrong than
to get them right, which is why we should be conservative when it comes
to language changes (including syntax). Changes to the language are
"default deny", not "default accept", and it is up to the proponents of
the change to prove their case, not for opponents to disprove it.