[Types-sig] RFC 0.1

Guido van Rossum guido@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:09:59 -0500

[Martijn Faassen]
> I agree with this, which is I am advocating a strong split (for
> simplicity) of fully-statically checked code and normal python code.

You can already do this -- write in Java or C.

> Later on you can work on blurring the interface between the two. First
> *fully* type annotated functions (classes, modules, what you want),
> which can only refer to other things that are fully annotated. By 'fully
> annotated' I mean all names have a type. I keep disagreeing with Paul's
> simplification of initially throwing out constructed types such as list
> of integer, as that would break my own approach at simplicity. :)

Agreed.  List of integer and its friends are important.  Also
correspondences (see my example of a sum() function taking a list of
<something> and an additional single <something>.

> If we throw out the syntax issue and use Python constructs for types
> until we know more, we'll all be happier, right? :) The syntax will be
> clear when the semantics is. Guido is good at syntax, let him figure out
> a good syntax for it, let's just focus on the semantics.

Thank you.  This of course leaves Paul with the question of how to
prototype all this -- he'll have to make *something* up. :-)

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)