[Python-3000] Fwd: Conventions for annotation consumers

Paul Prescod paul at prescod.net
Wed Aug 16 18:58:29 CEST 2006

I said "lists and tuples" where I meant "lists and strings".

On 8/16/06, Paul Prescod <paul at prescod.net> wrote:
> 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) later.
>  Paul Prescod
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/attachments/20060816/8810da78/attachment.html 

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list