On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:20:26PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > - Whether (given PEP 484's relative success) it's worth adding syntax > for variable/attribute annotations.
The PEP makes a good case that it does. > - Whether the keyword-free syntax idea proposed here is best: > NAME: TYPE > TARGET: TYPE = VALUE I think so. That looks like similar to the syntax used by TypeScript: http://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/type-inference.html let zoo: Animal[] = [new Rhino(), new Elephant(), new Snake()]; Some additional thoughts: Is it okay to declare something as both an instance and class attribute? class X: spam: int spam: ClassVar[Str] = 'suprise!' def __init__(self): self.spam = 999 I would expect it should be okay. It is more common in Python circles to talk about class and instance *attributes* than "variables". Class variable might be okay in a language like Java where classes themselves aren't first-class values, but in Python "class variable" always makes me think it is talking about a variable which is a class, just like a string variable or list variable. Can we have ClassAttr[] instead of ClassVar[]? Other than that, +1 on the PEP. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
