[Python-ideas] Proposal: Use mypy syntax for function annotations
alex.gaynor at gmail.com
Wed Aug 13 22:29:38 CEST 2014
I'm strongly opposed this, for a few reasons.
First, I think that standardizing on a syntax, without a semantics is
incredibly confusing, and I can't imagine how having *multiple* competing
implementations would be a boon for anyone.
This proposal seems to be built around the idea that we should have a syntax,
and then people can write third party tools, but Python itself won't really do
anything with them.
Fundamentally, this seems like a very confusing approach. How we write a type,
and what we do with that information are fundamentally connected. Can I cast a
``List[str]`` to a ``List[object]`` in any way? If yes, what happens when I go
to put an ``int`` in it? There's no runtime checking, so the type system is
unsound, on the other hand, disallowing this prevents many types of successes.
Both solutions have merit, but the idea of some implementations of the type
checker having covariance and some contravariance is fairly disturbing.
Another concern I have is that analysis based on these types is making some
pretty strong assumptions about static-ness of Python programs that aren't
valid. While existing checkers like ``flake8`` also do this, their assumptions
are basically constrained to the symbol table, while this is far deeper. For
example, can I annotate somethign as ``six.text_type``? What about
``django.db.models.sql.Query`` (keep in mind that this class is redefined based
on what database you're using (not actually true, but it used to be))?
Python's type system isn't very good. It lacks many features of more powerful
systems such as algebraic data types, interfaces, and parametric polymorphism.
Despite this, it works pretty well because of Python's dynamic typing. I
strongly believe that attempting to enforce the existing type system would be a
PS: You're right. None of this would provide *any* value for PyPy.
More information about the Python-ideas