[Python-ideas] Optional static typing -- the crossroads

[Guido van Rossum]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15 August 2014 09:56, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> >
> > I don't buy the argument that PEP 3107 promises that annotations are
> > completely free of inherent semantics.
>
> It's also worth noting the corresponding bullet point in PEP 3100
> (under http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3100/#core-language):
>
> * Add optional declarations for static typing [45] [10] [done]
>
> [10] Guido's blog ("Python Optional Typechecking Redux")
> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=89161
> [45] PEP 3107 (Function Annotations)
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107
>

Such youthful optimism. :-)


> Having Argument Clinic generate appropriate annotations automatically
> could also be interesting.
>

How much of the 3.5 stdlib is currently covered by Argument Clinic? I
thought there's still a lot left to do. Might it be possible to convert
some of pytypedecl's stubs into AC stubs? Alternatively, the AC info could
be turned into mypy stubs. I'm just really hoping that between AC,
pytypedecl, PyCharm and mypy we have specs for most builtins and extension
modules in machine-readable form already, and we could use this combined
information to bootstrap mypy's collection of stubs.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20140814/8ded6d12/attachment.html>