On 21.11.2017 19:05, אלעזר wrote:
I don't understand the question. The use case was explained before -
people want to have better ways to reason about their programs.
Statically. Why dismiss it as a non-usecase? It's helpful for both
tools and humans.
Then type annotations are for them.
But please don't clutter the core language with this.
When I read "final int x = 5;" in Java, I don't have to think about it
anymore - it's 5. When I read "X = 5" in Python, it might be a
constant, but it might also be a misnomer, or something that used to
be a constant, or a class reassigned.
What about using real-world names instead of X? That could make the
intentions crystal clear if you ask me.
Cheers,
Sven
PS: it seems to me that this resembles the typing discussions here.
Using non-sensical variable names to explain why type annotations are
sorely needed.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
