On 5/19/06, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a quick data point, I showed around your "dict[str, str|int]" > example to some friends, all of whom have done a decent amount of > coding in Python. I gave them some background, including that this was > an example of type parameterization. To quote one fellow, a PhD > student in CS at Edinburgh: "So, uh, 'dict[str, int|str]' is supposed > to represent... uh... I give in, what the hell is that supposed to > denote?" > > I know the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data"; maybe c.l.p should be > polled on some of these things?
I think c.l.py is definitely not the right place to go right now. It'll just dissolve into a syntax debate without touching on any of the real issues. Which brings me to my comment about the current discussion. Can't we drop the syntax discussion for a while and have someone motivate it with some use-cases first? Sure, I can figure out what ``dict[str, str|int]`` means, but I still have no idea what you'd gain by declaring a parameter to have such a type. Should it add checks every time __getitem__ or __setitem__ is called? I think that if we can figure out what people would actually use type annotations for, I think it'll be much clearer what exactly needs syntactic support. At the moment, I can see a few simple uses that would only make things painful -- e.g. parameters getting declared as ints when any number type would work -- or that seem too computationally inefficient -- e.g. dict[str, str] would presumably have to add type-checks at every __getitem__ or __setitem__ call. STeVe P.S. I did look at http://svn.python.org/projects/sandbox/trunk/typecheck, but couldn't find any use-case examples. -- Grammar am for people who can't think for myself. --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy _______________________________________________ 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
