On 29/05/2021 01:26, micro codery wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:07 PM Rob Cliffe Co<rob.cliffe@btinternet.com <mailto:rob.cliffe@btinternet.com>> wrote:
On 29/05/2021 00:51, micro codery wrote:
I also don't know what should happen for complicated assignments, and I think this has been the death of such variable decorator discussions in the past, so I would still push for only bare identifiers, with or without a type hint (but maybe it will be better received by more if the type hint is required?).
Please, please, please, don't ever make type hints *required*! Some of us are perfectly happy not using them (and not having to learn them)!
Rob Cliffe
Fair enough! If this became accepted syntax I would use it without type hints. Even for those of us that do use type hints in places, it shouldn’t generally be necessary because the decorator will have a return type annotation. I think the original argument was that currently bare identifiers are not allowed unless they have annotation.
I think I'm missing something (no, NOT just my marbles, something else 😁). Do you mean bare unbound identifiers? spam = 'eggs' spam # No problem Rob Cliffe
But this is introducing a new multiline syntax, and it makes no more sense to take away the second line and expect a naked decorator to be valid than it does remove the decorator and expect the naked identifier to be valid.