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

Paddy paddy3118 at
Wed Jun 20 23:02:33 CEST 2007

On Jun 20, 7:53 pm, Stephen R Laniel <s... at> wrote:
> Before I ask anything, let me note that this is surely an
> old question that has inspired its share of flame wars; I'm
> new to Python, but not new to how Internet discussions work.
> So if there's a canonical thread or web page that documents
> the whole battle, feel free to point me to it.
> Reading [1], I wonder: why isn't the compiler making better
> use of (purely optional) type labeling? Why not make a compiler
> directive so that
> a) it will check the types of all my arguments and return
>    values, and maybe even
> b) do some type inference up the call stack?
> E.g.,
> def( Class1 arg1, Class2 arg2, ..., ClassN argN ):
>     someStuff()
> would check the types of the arguments, whereas
> def( arg1, arg2, ..., argN):
>     someStuff()
> would not? I.e., if I *want* strong static
> type-checking, why shouldn't I be able to get it? Is it that
> allowing this as a compile-time option would mess up too
> many knobs to make it optional?
> Again, probably an old debate. I'd like to know why Guido's
> decided that not only is strong static typing
> productivity-reducing [2], but that it should be *forbidden*.
> [1] -
> [2] -
> --
> Stephen R. Laniel
> s... at
> Cell: +(617) 308-5571
> PGP key:

have you seen language Boo? It adds static typing to Python
inspired syntax:

- Paddy.

More information about the Python-list mailing list