[Types-sig] minimal or major change? (was: RFC 0.1)

Tim Peters tim_one@email.msn.com
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 03:59:33 -0500

[Martijn Faassen, reasonably demands ...]
> So that's where I'm coming from. It's important for our proposal
> to actually come up with a workable development plan, because
> adding type checking to Python is rather involved. So I've been
> pushing one course of implementation towards a testable/hackable
> system that seems to give us the minimal amount of development
> complexities. I haven't seen clear development paths from others
> yet; most proposals seem to involve both run-time and compile-
> time developments at the same time.
> So I'm interested to see other development proposals; possibly
> there's a simpler approach or equally complex approach with more
> payoff, that I'm missing.

I haven't given a lick of thought to development, beyond sketching "the
usual" approach to type inference for Guido, and having a hard-won intuition
about what is and isn't reasonably parseable.  This SIG has been "alive
again" for on the order of just one week:  design precedes implementation,
and I won't bemoan the lack of implementation details even if they're
delayed for *another* whole week <wink>.

At that point, it's fine by me if the first cut is *spelled* using plain
dicts and docstrings etc to ease development.  But before that point, we
don't even know what we want it to *do*.

"we"-being-the-consensus-"we"-ly y'rs  - tim