[Python-3000] Fwd: Conventions for annotation consumers

Paul Prescod paul at prescod.net
Wed Aug 16 18:38:21 CEST 2006

On 8/16/06, Collin Winter <collinw at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I don't understand why we would want to go backwards. You wrote a PEP. We
haven't suggested any major technical changes to it, rather just a few
guidelines. How would restricting the domain of the PEP solve any issues
about dynamicity?

By the way, I think it may be naive to presume that there is only one
relevant type system. People may well want to establish mappings from their
types to programming language types. For example, to COM types, .NET types
and Java types. 80% of these may be inferencable from platform-independent
declarations but the other 20% may require a second layer of
platform-specific type declarations.

Paul Prescod
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/attachments/20060816/bafe8aa0/attachment.html 

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list