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

[Juancarlo Añez]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

>
> (2) For type annotations, should we adopt (roughly) the mypy syntax or the
> alternative proposed by Dave Halter? This uses built-in container notations
> as a shorthand, e.g. {str: int} instead of Dict[str, int]. This also
> touches on the issue of abstract vs. concrete types (e.g. iterable vs.
> list).


Maybe we've been missing that in most programming languages the
sub-language for describing types is separate from the sub-language for
describing algorithms. It is so in Haskell, and in C, and in LISP, and many
others.

It should be OK if similar constructs mean different things in each
sub-language, as the necessary symbol reuse (if one omits APL) come mostly
from the IBM keyboard and ASCII.

Personally, I'd like to type less, as is most often the case with current
Python. Beyond that, I agree it is important that the adopted syntax does
not mislead.

Cheers,


-- 
Juancarlo *Añez*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20140819/2cbfd767/attachment.html>