On 8 Jan 2022 at 00:59:38, jack.jan...@cwi.nl wrote: > I posted this suggestion earlier in the callable type syntax discussion, > at which point it was completely ignored. Possibly because it’s a really > stupid idea, but let me post it again on the off chance that it isn’t a > stupid idea but was overlooked. > > If I can make a wild suggestion: why not create a little language for type > specifications? > > Indeed.
Using the same syntax may have some benefits for language implementors (e.g. less complex grammar to implement), but I don’t really see these benefits for language users. As an example, and I don’t know if this has been discussed before, I think a pretty neat syntax construct for optional argument would be (like, for instance, in Kotlin): def f(x: int? = None): ... Instead of: def f(x: Optional[int] = None): … or def f(x: int | None = None): … One could even argue that the “= None” part would be redundant (def f(x: int?): ...) and could be made optional. But that would open another can of worms. S. -- Stefane Fermigier - http://fermigier.com/ - http://twitter.com/sfermigier - http://linkedin.com/in/sfermigier Founder & CEO, Abilian - Enterprise Social Software - http://www.abilian.com/ Co-Founder & Co-Chairman, National Council for Free & Open Source Software (CNLL) - http://cnll.fr/ Co-Founder & Chairman, Association Professionnelle Européenne du Logiciel Libre (APELL) - https://www.apell.info/ Co-Founder & Spokesperson, European Cloud Industrial Alliance (EUCLIDIA) - https://www.euclidia.eu/ Founder, PyParis & PyData Paris - http://pyparis.org/ & http://pydata.fr/
_______________________________________________ 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/PDRKIUCGM257VRZCPGBVB2LN34XAIZZR/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
