optional static typing for Python

Russ P. Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Mon Jan 28 11:42:31 CET 2008

On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
42.desthuilli... at wtf.websiteburo.oops.com> wrote:
> Russ P. a écrit :> A while back I came across a tentative proposal from way back in 2000
> > for optional static typing in Python:
> (snip)
> > In any case, optional static typing in Python would help tremendously
> > here. The hardest part of automated conversion of Python to a
> > statically typed language is the problem of type inference. If the
> > types are explicitly declared, that problem obviously goes away.
> (snip)
> > Note also that, while "static" type checking would be ideal,
> > "explicit" typing would be a major step in the right direction
> Lord have mercy(tm).

What is that supposed to mean?

Oh, I almost forgot. I'm supposed to sit here and be polite while
clueless dolts make wise cracks. Sorry, but I haven't yet mastered
that level of self-control.

I would just like to thank you for reminding me about what losers hang
out perpetually on sites like this one, thinking they are in some kind
of real "community." Being reminded of that will help prevent me from
becoming such a loser myself. No, I didn't say that all the "regulars"
here are losers, but you most certainly are.

Do you have a job? How about a life? Have you ever been "with" a
woman? How in the world is it that every time I come to this site, I
see your sorry ass hanging around yet again? I can't even imagine how
"pointless" your life must be if you have that much time to spend
"hanging around" on comp.lang.python -- and being an a--hole to boot.

Yeah, Lord have mercy -- on losers like you.

And thanks for reminding me to quit wasting so much time here. I've
been doing way too much of that lately.

More information about the Python-list mailing list