Guido van Rossum writes:
> But that's not what type comments mean! They don't annotate the
> expression. They annotate the variable.
In PEP 484. But syntactically, AFAICS in an initialization that's a
distinction without a difference. It would be perfectly possible to
write a checker that allows
if cond:
x: str = "a string, what else?"
else:
x: int = 1
and infers the union, and even infers the types from the expressions
in
if cond:
x = "a string, what else?"
else:
x = 1
Once you have that, then the only things that are really being typed
are the initializer expressions.
I don't understand why some people seem to think that is a *good*
typechecker (if that's it's normal mode of operation). But as a tool
to identify the types that untyped (or ambiguously-typed) code
actually uses, review them, and help produce a precisely typed
version, it seems perfectly plausible to me.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
