[Types-sig] Re: [Python-Dev] Revive the types sig?

[Paul Prescod]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> Yes, Yes, YES!
> 
> The goal of whatever it is we're doing here should be to come up with
> a PEP, and a Wiki seems to be a good way to iteratively approach
> writing a PEP.  (As long as eventually it's moved into the PEP.)

I don't know about everybody else but I have a single event queue and
that is my inbox. I can use a Wiki if there is a bidirectional mail
engine but otherwise I would rather use a mailing list.

> I also believe that without an outspoken author who heads the effort,
> there's no hope.  Paul, please either lead the way or say you ain't
> "it".  We've had enough meta discussion. 

I disagree. The problem with previous efforts has been precisely that
everybody comes in with radically conflicting goals and approaches. I've
"just dived in" twice before with no success. We have a variety of very
precise and elaborate documents here: 

http://www.python.org/sigs/types-sig/

And we are no closer to a final spec. It would be absolutely no use for
me to dive in writing another one.

That said, I have four new type-related PEPs sitting on my hard drive.
But I strongly believe that it is NOT useful to start discussing
solutions until we agree on the problem we're trying to solve. I'll
release my PEPs, half of the audience will yell: "that doesn't solve the
static type checking problem", another (partially overlapping) half will
yell: "that isn't as computationally complete as ML" and so forth.

-- 
Python:
    Programming the way
    Guido
    indented it.
       - (originated with Skip Montanaro?)