On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 8:17 PM Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> Why would it need to be reiterated? Are there really people who believe > that such code would become invalid? AFAIK *everybody* here agrees that > this should stay valid. So who would we be reiterating it for? > I'm certainly not alone, among people on this list, in regard to the following. But I teach a lot of people who are coders, but not necessarily senior (in Python, or otherwise). I also mentor/lead such junior programmers. I find it quite common when people who haven't known Python for 20 years see type annotations, they have trouble getting the optional and gradual nature of them. Explaining that is certainly not impossible, nor even all that difficult. However, it DOES need to be explained. Especially when less experienced Pythonistas have worked with statically typed languages, they often see code with type annotations and overgeneralize to their requirement. I don't know exactly what that means about *where* this needs to be explained. Maybe just by trainers and authors. But maybe things in official Python documentation as well, which seem more definitive. -- Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/H2P7KUV6IRZLKZ3G73RJGJN5U6NZOCYQ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
