On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:07 PM Rob Cliffe Co<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.

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.