[Python-3000] Conventions for annotation consumers (was: Re: Draft pre-PEP: function annotations)

[Collin Winter]

On 8/15/06, Paul Prescod <paul at prescod.net> wrote:
> On 8/15/06, Collin Winter <collinw at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Extending this same idea to static analysis tools, tools like
> > pychecker or an optimising compiler would have to supply their own
> > such wrapper classes. This would be a huge burden, not just on the
> > authors of such tools, but also on those wishing to use these tools.
>
> No, this is incorrect. Metadata is just metadata. Libraries act on metadata.
>  There is a many to many relationship. You could go and define Collin's type
> metadata syntax. You create a library of wrappers (really you need only ONE
> wrapper). Then you could convince the writers of PyPy to use the same
> syntax. So there would be one set of annotations used by two libraries.

If multiple libraries use the same wrappers, then I can't use more
than one of these libraries at the same time. If a typechecking
consumer, a docstring consumer and PyPy all use the same wrapper (or
"syntax" -- you switch terms between sentences), then I can't have
typechecking and docstrings on the same functions, and I can't do
either if I'm running my program with PyPy.

Collin Winter