Oh, I didn't think it would get into the standard library in one shot, that's for sure! I just wanted to gauge interest to see if I should continue working on it and promoting it. I'll go ahead and do so, and put it up on pypi.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
On Mar 11, 2014, at 5:28 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
Cem Karan writes:
Is there any further interest in standardized annotations, or should the idea be abandoned?
Obviously there's interest; standards are a good thing when you're trying to share. But not if they end up getting in the way of sharing because they're too limited or you end up with a bunch of standards such that no program can conform with all of them.
To avoid the latter, you need to provide an implementation and show that it's useful by waiting for it to be used. You're not going to get a standard in to the stdlib at this point because there's not enough usage of *any* proposed annotation standard.
If you want to make progress on this, just do it, and worry about getting it in to the stdlib later.
To see what it takes to go directly into the stdlib, consider the PEP 461 debate. There was no need to provide an implementation and wait for usage to follow *because %-formatting for binary was already in widespread practical use in Python 2*. It was pretty clear that the default was going to be "just like Python 2", and that's how it ended up -- with the exception of "%r" because that would do the wrong thing in the intended use case (and "%a" does an equivalent right thing).