On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are two places where PEP draft says: > > "Note that there is no conceptual difference between explicit and implicit > subtypes" > > and > > "The general philosophy is that protocols are mostly like regular ABCs, > but a static type checker will handle them specially." > > Do you want to propose alternative wording for these, or would you rather > like an additional statement? > Let's do an additional statement. Something like "Static analysis tools are expected to automatically detect that a class implements a given protocol. So while it's possible to subclass a protocol explicitly, it's not necessary to do so for the sake of type-checking."
_______________________________________________ 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
