[Python-3000] Fwd: Conventions for annotation consumers

Paul Prescod paul at prescod.net
Wed Aug 16 18:55:31 CEST 2006

On 8/16/06, Collin Winter <collinw at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I meant "restrict" as in having it stated that the annotations
> are for typechecking, rather than attempting to support a dozen
> different uses simultaneously. The annotations would still be
> free-form, with the semantics up to whoever's implementing the
> __typecheck__ function, and Python itself wouldn't take any steps to
> enforce what can or can't go in the annotations.

Nobody every suggested that Python should take any steps to enforce what can
or can't go in the annotations! It seems that we're inventing disagreement
where there is none. All I ever suggested is a) that we put some guidelines
in the spec *discouraging* people from using built-in Python types for their
own private meanings without some kind of discriminator clarifying that they
are doing so and b) that we define the shared meanings of a couple of useful
types: lists and tuples. This leaves the Python development team the maximum
latitude to specify the meanings for the other types (especially type type)

 Paul Prescod
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/attachments/20060816/2505b89f/attachment.htm 

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list