[Python-3000] Draft pre-PEP: function annotations

[Guido van Rossum]

On 8/14/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> At 1:51 PM 8/14/2006 -0700, "Paul Prescod" <paul at prescod.net> wrote:
> >On 8/14/06, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The definition of a type as an annotation should probably be either
> > > defined or explicitly undefined.  Earlier discussions talked about
> > > things like
> > >
> > >     def f (a:int, b:(float | Decimal), c:[int, str, X]) ->str)
> >
> >
> >I think that's a separate (large!) PEP. This PEP should disallow frameworks
> >from inventing their own meaning for this syntax (requiring them to at least
> >wrap). Then Guido and crew can dig into this issue on their own schedule.
>
> I see we haven't made nearly as much progress on the concept of "no
> predefined semantics" as I thought we had.  :(
>
> i.e., -1 on constraining what types mean.

Haven't I said that the whole time? I *thought* that Collin's PEP
steered clear from the topic too. At the same time, does this preclude
having some kind of "default" type notation in the standard library?

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)