[Types-sig] RFC Comments

[Paul Prescod]

skaller wrote:
> 
>         I do consider your RFC's prototypes -- but they're already
> quite good specifications, so it is already time to try to tighten them
> up.
> IMHO. Doing this will also help uncover ambiguities and problems,
> that 'loose' wording will cover up.

I'm thinking that my current work will evolve into a tutorial and the
spec will be separate. I'm a believer in short, formal specs and long,
wordy, expanatory tutorials.

>         No, you mentioned it in point 5. :-)

Okay, you win. Const is out for now.

> So: we have to be able to load an interface, without
> that necessarily implying the module be imported.

I see why you would sometimes only care about interfaces and not about
implementations but I do not see what it harms to do a "real import" of
the module. In languages like Java and C++ you might import a package or
header file only for interfaces.

I guess I need to know the difference which module-import semantics you
are trying to avoid.

> On the other hand, in an _interface_ file, we cannot
> import anything: importing implies run time code
> generation, to bind a name to a module object.

Okay, but if it can be shown that no code is ever executed from the
module then you don't have to generate that code.

> The reason I chose "!" for argument declarations was that it
> was already being used in similar way for the _expression_:
> 
>         y = x ! t
> 
> and in this context, ":" cannot be used.

Right. My RFC uses a function call syntax inline. It seems more Pythonic
and can cause no no precedence confusion. It is also compatible with the
Python 1.5.x grammar.

>         OK. You should proceed with _some_ fixed syntax. 

I used "as" everywhere else. The colon was just a lapse. 

> My argument is something like this: 

I'm lost in this subthread. I never understood what change you were
proposing. Can we start again?

 Paul Prescod