[Python-ideas] Type Hinting Kick-off

[Nick Coghlan]

On 22 December 2014 at 06:32, Andrew Svetlov <andrew.svetlov at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sorry, I want to ask again.
> The proposal is for static checks only?
> My expectations for processing annotations in runtime as-is (just a
> mark without any restrictions) will not changed?
>

Correct, there are no changes being proposed to the runtime semantics of
annotations. The type hinting proposal describes a conventional use for
them that will be of benefit to static type checking systems and integrated
development environments, but it will be exactly that: a convention, not an
enforced behaviour.

The convention of treating "_" prefixed methods and other attributes as
private to the implementation of a class or module is a good example of a
similar approach. While some things (like pydoc and wildcard imports) will
respect the convention, it's not enforced at the core language level - if a
developer decides they're prepared to accept the compatibility risk, then
they're free to use the "private" attribute if they choose to do so.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20141222/54e40783/attachment.html>