PEP 3107 and stronger typing (note: probably a newbie question)

Donn Cave donn at
Thu Jul 5 21:24:37 CEST 2007

In article <1183575597.272150.152200 at>,
 Paul Boddie <paul at> wrote:

> However, it's interesting to consider the work that sometimes needs to
> go in to specify data structures in some languages - thinking of ML
> and friends, as opposed to Java and friends. The campaign for optional
> static typing in Python rapidly became bogged down in this matter,
> fearing that any resulting specification for type information might
> not be the right combination of flexible and powerful to fit in with
> the rest of the language, and that's how we really ended up with PEP
> 3107: make the semantics vague and pretend it has nothing to do with
> types, thus avoiding the issue completely.

I missed the campaign for optional static typing, must have been
waged in the developer list.  Unless it was not much more than
some on-line musings from GvR a year or two ago.  I don't see
how it could ever get anywhere without offending a lot of the
Python crowd, however well designed, so I can see why someone
might try to sneak it past by pretending it has nothing to do
with types.  But he didn't -- look at the examples, I think he
rather overstates the potential for static typing applications.

   Donn Cave, donn at

More information about the Python-list mailing list