On 31 May 2016 at 09:56, Stephen J. Turnbull email@example.com wrote:
I know you don't think a keyword works for you, but either the recently reraised "def <name> = <type-expr>" or perhaps "type <name>: <type-expr>" make more sense to me right out of the box.
I was thinking along the lines of "name <some_keyword> callable", which I don't think works because it needs some "punctuation" to separate the name from the callable.
But "def name = callable" (or some other preceding keyword combined with =) might work. I don't like "type" though, as the point here (I thought - see below) is to come up with a construct useful for more than just types.
I'm +1 for stopping the bikeshedding until we've all got a lot of stubfile reading under our belts.
If this was simply about type definitions, I'd agree. But I thought the point of Guido's post was that having seen two examples (TypeVar and Symbol) is there a more general approach that might cover these two cases as well as others? So just looking at the problem in terms of stub files isn't really the point here.