At 07:04 AM 8/15/2006 -0700, Paul Prescod wrote: >On 8/14/06, Guido van Rossum <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >> >>Haven't I said that the whole time? I *thought* that Collin's PEP >>steered clear from the topic too. At the same time, does this preclude >>having some kind of "default" type notation in the standard library? > >The PEP steered TOO far of this topic. If it is total free-for-all then >when and if we do come up with a standard syntax (whether in 2006 or 2010) >it will conflict with deployed code that used the same syntax to mean >something different then the standard. And even if there is never, ever, >going to be a standard, it must be possible for tools reading the >annotations to know whether the user intended their markup to conform to >metadata-syntax 1, where "int" means "32 bit int" or metadata syntax 2 >where it means "arbitrary sized int". Similarly, they must know whether >the annotater intended to use metadata syntax 1 where "tuple" means "fixed >size, heterogenous" or syntax 2 where it means "immutable list".
On the contrary - it is precisely this looseness that the PEP meant to specify, and that I support. The alternative is too restrictive. Meanwhile, the absence of predefined semantics does *not* preclude a default type notation existing in the standard library, any more than the absence of a predefined semantics for docstrings or function attributes prevents the stdlib from containing docstring processors or tools that operate on function attributes. _______________________________________________ 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
