[Python-3000] Fwd: Conventions for annotation consumers

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Aug 16 18:35:00 CEST 2006

At 10:09 AM 8/16/2006 -0500, Collin Winter wrote:
>On 8/15/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
>>Personally, I thought Guido's original proposal for function annotations,
>>which included a __typecheck__ operator that was replaceable on a
>>per-module basis (and defaulted to a no-op), was the perfect thing --
>>neither too much semantics nor too-little.  I'd like to have it back,
>>please.  :)
>I'd be perfectly happy to go back to talking about "type annotations",
>rather than the more general "function annotations", especially since
>most of the discussion thus far has been about how to multiple things
>with annotations at the same time. Restricting annotations to type
>information would be fine by me.

Who said anything about restricting annotations to type information?  I 
just said I liked Guido's original proposal better -- because it doesn't 
restrict a darned thing, and makes it clear that the semantics are up to you.

The annotations of course should still be exposed as a function attribute.

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list