[Types-sig] RE: [meta-sig] The Types-SIG is comatose. Let's retire it.
Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:21:53 PST
> Regardless of these minor quibbles, my largest complaint is:
> > * the goal is a optional static type system for version 2.
> What exactly is the deliverable. Saying an "optional static type
> system" is a bit vague. What is it specifically? A formal
> specification of the type system? A stand-alone utility that reports
> type errors? A new compiler?
I share some of Jeremy's concerns about the single goal. My favorite
tack on these things is to focus on what the problem is. In my view,
the largest single technical problem with Python is that it doesn't
afford the static type checking that Java has. This, in my experience
when I ask people about it, always turns out to mean that there's no
way to type-check the use of an imported module. So I'd make the
priority be the ability to optionally declare types in both callable
signatures and in the code itself, and to have types checked at least
across use of imported modules.
Note that, contrary to Jeremy's assertion, this doesn't explicitly
mention interfaces, and doesn't necessarily involve them. Of course,
defining a module always implicitly defines an interface, so one could
argue that interfaces are always a factor.