[Python-3000] Draft pre-PEP: function annotations
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Sun Aug 13 04:21:47 CEST 2006
At 05:05 PM 8/12/2006 -0700, Paul Prescod wrote:
>It seems to me that there are two very reasonable positions being
>expressed. Is the following (non-normative) text a compromise?
>"In order for processors of function annotations to work interoperably,
>they must use a common interpretation of objects used as annotations on a
>particular function. For example, one might interpret string annotations
>as docstrings. Another might interpet them as path segments for a web
>framework. For this reason, function annotation processors SHOULD avoid
>assigning processor-specific meanings to types defined outside of the
>processor's framework. For example, a Django processor could process
>annotations of a type defined in a Zope package, but Zope's creators
>should be considered the authorities on the type's meaning for the same
>reasons that they would be considered authorities on the semantics of
>classes or methods in their packages. This implies that the interpretation
>of built-in types would be controlled by Python's developers and
>documented in Python's documentation. This is just a best practice.
>Nothing in the language can or should enforce this practice and there may
>be a few domains where there is a strong argument for violating it ( e.g.
>an education environment where saving keystrokes may be more important
>than easing interopability)."
I mostly like this; the main issue I see is that as long as we're
recommending best practices, we should recommend using tell-don't-ask (via
duck typing protocols, adaptation, or overloaded functions) so that their
libraries can be enhanced and extended by other developers.
>"In Python 3000, semantics will be attached to the following types:
>basestring and its subtypes are to be used for documentation (though they
>are not necessarily the exclusive source of documentation about the type).
>List and its subtypes are to be used for attaching multiple independent
I'm not sure why we would use strings for documentation, but I'm not
opposed since it eliminates the question of multiple interpretations for
>(does chaining make sense in this context?)
I don't know if I know what you mean by "chaining". Good use of
tell-don't-ask means that any interpretation of annotations nested in other
annotations would be defined by the enclosing annotation (or in an overload
More information about the Python-3000