[Python-ideas] Attribute Docstrings and Annotations

Tony Lownds tony at pagedna.com
Tue Jan 2 18:40:44 CET 2007

On Jan 2, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Josiah Carlson wrote:

> Tony Lownds <tony at pagedna.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>>> I have never needed attribute annotations, and I've never heard any
>>> core
>>> Python developer talk about it being useful to have them.  -1 for  
>>> the
>>> feature in any form.
>>> The syntax as described is ugly.  -100 for the feature if it has the
>>> syntax provided.
>> It's the same syntax as function annotations...
>> def f(name: annotation = value):
>>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I don't particularly like the look of function annotations either,  
> but I
> don't have a better syntax (aside from swapping the annotation and  
> value).
> In this case, I really don't like attribute annotations because it
> looks to me like a bunch of line noise without meaning, or some C-like
> conditional expression gone wrong.
>> class F:
>>      name: annotation = value
>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> The syntax was presented on Guido's blog, too.
>> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=87182
> I didn't like it when Guido posted it on his blog either.  I would  
> also
> point out that Guido lists attribute annotations as a "maybe".   
> Perhaps
> he has become 100% on them, I don't know, but I'm still -1.
> In any case, you still haven't provided any use-cases, or an example
> where developers have been asking for the feature and could show that
> *not* having the feature was constraining them in some significant  
> way.

As long as it's clear that the syntax as proposed has SOME existing  
behind it, I'm happy to leave the proposal alone.


More information about the Python-ideas mailing list