On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <jni.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a complete outsider’s perspective but > > (a) it would be good if NumPy type annotations could include an “array_like” > type that allows lists, tuples, etc.
I'm sure this will exist. > (b) I’ve always thought (since PEP561) that it would be cool for type > annotations to replace compiler type annotations for e.g. Cython and Numba. > Is this in the realm of possibility for the future? It turns out that the PEP 484 type system is *mostly* not useful for this. They're really designed for checking consistency across a large code-base, not for enabling compiler speedups. For example, if you annotate something as an int, that means "this object is a subclass of int". This is enough to let mypy catch your mistake if you accidentally pass in a float instead, but it's not enough to tell you anything at all about the object's behavior -- you could make a wacky int subclass that acts like a string or something. Probably there are some benefits that compilers can get from PEP 484 annotations, but you should think of them as largely an orthogonal thing. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
