[Fwd: Re: [Types-sig] Apologies and proposal]

scott scott@chronis.pobox.com
Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:12:03 -0500

On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 06:16:33AM -0800, Paul Prescod wrote:
> If my proposed process is inherently doomed to failure than our entire
> project is doomed to failure because Python 1.0's type system did not
> make specific allowance for the later addition of a static type checking
> system. I believe that good (incremental) design back then will meld
> with good (incremental) design now to make a good result.

Sorry to sound so negative.  I'm just trying to say be careful!

My last response gave some examples of things that I thought needed
consideration because they didn't supply a foundation that is a common
to all reasonable static type systems python could adopt.  If that
message screamed doom and gloom, I'm sorry, it was intended to offer
another perspective and some things that I think should be addressed
in a 20% plan, nothing more.