Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Paul Rubin http
Thu Jan 15 08:10:07 CET 2009


Michele Simionato <michele.simionato at gmail.com> writes:
> I would be fine having something like pylint built-in in the language
> and running at every change of the source code (unless disabled with a
> command line switch). I think this is the only reasonable solution to
> get some additional protection we can hope for. A true change of the
> language IMO is impossible, both technically, politically and for
> legacy issue. Also, I am not convinced it would be a good idea, even
> theoretically. It is easier to write a new Python-like language
> from scratch than to add type checking to Python (I think you
> were not proposing adding type checking in this post, right?).

I think this sub-thread has been mostly about dynamically creating new
class instance attributes, but yes, at one point I did suggest adding
type checking (ML-like inference) to pylint, presumably with feedback
to the compiler for optimization purposes.  I noted that Python 3.0 in
fact has some features to support annotations for the purpose of
static type checking, so it's not as far off the wall as it might
sound.



More information about the Python-list mailing list