Interface Descriptions - was Re: Static typing

[Colin J. Williams]

Scott David Daniels wrote:

> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> 
>> Michael Muller wrote:
>>
>>> Is there currently any plan to introduce static typing in any future
>>> version of Python?  
>>
>> Seriously, why would you do that ?
> 
> 
> You _might_ want some static typing information as program
> documentation or to enable efficient program translation.  The
> types sig was interested in allowing type annotation where
> possible.  Remember, the type you might want may be more like
> "what protocol must these objects (the ones passing through
> this variable) follow" than "what are the construction details
> of these objects".
> 
> I would like to see interface descriptions describing what
> kinds of parameters are required and results produced for
> packages that I am considering using.  If there were a single
> central-python-endorsed form for those descriptions even better.
> If the descriptions can be mechanically read, and at least
> sometimes mechincally checked (possibly slowly, possibly only
> for slow execution), I might use such a system to check a module
> before announcing it to the world.
> [and some other things]

It would be helpful to have some sort of consensus as to what form
these descriptions should take.

As suggested, it's desirable that description be both human and
machine readable.  I would suggest that priority be given to
the former.

Colin W.