At 1:51 PM 8/14/2006 -0700, "Paul Prescod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 8/14/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The definition of a type as an annotation should probably be either > > defined or explicitly undefined. Earlier discussions talked about > > things like > > > > def f (a:int, b:(float | Decimal), c:[int, str, X]) ->str) > > >I think that's a separate (large!) PEP. This PEP should disallow frameworks >from inventing their own meaning for this syntax (requiring them to at least >wrap). Then Guido and crew can dig into this issue on their own schedule.
I see we haven't made nearly as much progress on the concept of "no predefined semantics" as I thought we had. :( i.e., -1 on constraining what types mean. _______________________________________________ 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
