> While the SC's decision to keep the syntax uniform is certainly laudable, > it's creating the issue of packaging new complexities into a very limited > syntactic & semantic space (e.g. no new magic symbols like "->", which I > agree with BTW), leaving only very verbose solutions that the typing crowd is > chafing against.
Seems that I unintentionally ended up jinxing the callable type syntax PEP - I must have misread some of the discussions up until that point, thinking that "->" had been already ruled out - sorry! 😅 > I think accepting that typing has a syntactic cost on the python language as > a whole is unavoidable at some point (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing). > Having a separate & opt-in mini-language for type declarations seems like a > really clean way to delineate that cost resp. extension, and I especially > like the t''-string syntax. In light of the rejection of that PEP, I think this point is worth revisiting (in due time). _______________________________________________ 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/BKMUZVICTAOZXS6QA2XXO7YMIFBYWB3E/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
