On 4/10/06, Chaz. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you are going this far, why not also support a throws() modifier (or > whatever you might call it). > > Right now I do something like: > > @throws(IOError) > def foo(...) : > > as a way to indicate that foo() can throw a specific exception. > > I might suggest > > def foo(...) throws(...) : > > as a more integrated approach.
-1 without more (and I mean A LOT MORE) motivation. IOW unless you write a whole PEP I'm going to ignore this proposal. > On this direct topic because there is no type-specific polymorphism in > Python, What does that mean? I always think of Python as a language with excellent support for polymorphism (due to duck typing). So you probably are using words in a way that I don't understand (don't worry, that happens all the time). > I occasionally write functions that do slightly different things > depending on the type of input. Is there an approach to say a specific > argument can take any number of different types? Yes, I proposed using the '|' operator to separate alternatives. E.g. def foo(x: int|float, y: str|list[str]): ... -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
