Zope 3.0, and why I won't use it

[Josiah Carlson]

aleaxit at yahoo.com (Alex Martelli) wrote:

[snip your better implementation]

> but the point is whether, if and when 'optional static typing' _syntax_
> gets it, it will have this semantics or that of inserting a lot of
> typechecks... people can do typecheks or adaptation now, and neither
> will go away -- but which, if either, should syntax facilitate?  That,
> as I see it, is key.

I guess it all depends.
"In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess."
"Explicit is better than implicit."

With the requisite zens quoted, I'd say that there should be an explicit
way to do both, because guessing which one (but not both) is necessarily
the wrong thing to do.

With that said, type-based dispatch, checking and adaptation are
provided by decorators, which are explicit.  They are not a syntax
per-se, but they will get the job done in the mean time (if placing type
checking and adaptations in the function body is not sufficient).

 - Josiah