On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:31 AM Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:27 AM Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:07 AM Franklin? Lee <leewangzhong+python@gmail.com> wrote:
For example, if (A <: B or A <: C) and A <: D: is not much better than if issubclass(A, (B, C)) and issubclass(A, D): especially if you don't know what either of those mean. You can search for issubclass, but you can't search for <:.
Please can people stop trotting out this tired argument? I just typed "<:" (without the quotes) into Google - or rather, into my Chrome omnibar - and the first hit was a Stack Overflow question regarding the "<:" operator in Scala, the second is Scala documentation about "Upper Type Bounds" which looks plausible, and then there are a few others that may or may not be related.
Symbols CAN be searched for, both in Google and in many documentation tools.
It's still harder. E.g. the wikipedia article on subtyping does not show in the search results for "<:", and searching for "<: wikipedia" ignores the "<:" entirely and just searches for "wikipedia".
Fair. But it keeps being said as "you can't search for", which at best is an exaggeration. There is a related problem with symbols in that they often have multiple meanings (if you search for info about "@" in a Python context, you'll get both matrix multiplication and decorators), but they are still searchable. (And maybe if people stop using "they're not searchable" as an argument, the tools that ARE completely unable to search for symbols will be seen as flawed tools.) ChrisA