optional types

Kiuhnm gandalf23 at mail.com
Wed Oct 29 20:09:11 CET 2014


On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:03:16 PM UTC+1, Kiuhnm wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:19:11 PM UTC+1, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> > Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>:
> > 
> > > Yes, but if it's official, the standard library (large parts of it, at
> > > least) will use it, which will make it a lot more useful than it
> > > currently is.
> > 
> > I doubt it. Python should decide if it wants to stay Python or become
> > another Java. I don't really believe in this "be everything for
> > everybody" thing. You'll only become nothing for anybody.
> > 
> > 
> > Marko
> 
> 1) Java is not optionally typed.
> 2) Having optional types is not "being everything for everybody", it's just being smart.

...where "smart" is referred to IDEs, etc...



More information about the Python-list mailing list