On 6 September 2016 at 14:04, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > I'm sorry, but we're not going to invent new syntax this late in the > game. The syntax proposed by the PEP has been on my mind ever since > PEP 484 with very minor variations; I first proposed it seriously on > python-ideas over a month ago, we've been debating the details since > then, and it's got a solid implementation based on those debates by > Ivan Levkivskyi. In contrast, it looks like you just made the "assert > x: T" syntax up last night in response to the worries expressed by > Mark Shannon, and "assert" sounds a lot like a run-time constraint to > me.
That's a fair description, but the notation also helped me a lot in articulating the concepts I was concerned about without having to put dummy annotated functions everywhere :) > Instead, I encourage you to participate in the writing of a separate > PEP explaining how type checkers are expected to work (since PEP 526 > doesn't specify that). Ivan is also interested in such a PEP and we > hope Mark will also lend us his expertise. Aye, I'd be happy to help with that - I think everything proposed can be described in terms of existing PEP 484 primitives and the descriptor protocol, so the requirements on typecheckers would just be for them to be self-consistent, rather than defining fundamentally new behaviours. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
