On 11/28/20 9:31 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'm not so keen on the square brackets you propose. How about we write
> Callable[[x, y], z] as (x, y) -> z instead?
I also like the "(x, y) -> z" syntax a bit better than "[x, y -> z]". (+0.5)
On 11/28/20 3:46 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> You could parenthesize the return value if you think it's not clear.
> (IIRC some functional languages like Haskell use the ... -> ... -> ...
> notation to indicate functions of multiple arguments, so it's probably
> good to avoid looking like that -- even if it'sconsistent it would
> mislead people into thinking that Python uses a similar idiom.
To avoid the "... -> ... -> ... " ambiguity, I'd suggest that kind of
chaining be recognized and treated as a syntax error. If describing a
Callable that itself returned another Callable, it would then be
necessary to parenthesize the return value:
A function that has two Callables as arguments and a Callable return
type would then look like:
f: ((int, str) -> int, (…) -> str) -> ((str) -> int)
(It's worth noting that I don't think either the original "Callable[[x,
y], z]" syntax OR the proposed "(x, y) -> z" syntax is particularly
readable when lots of nesting is involved, but I suspect that's just
because the type is just complicated. :) )
On 11/28/20 10:02 AM, Abdulla Al Kathiri wrote:
> Regardless of how it’s done, the less we depend on the typing module for
> annotations, the better I think because it encourages python users to
> annotate their functions.
Indeed. (+1)
--
David Foster | Seattle, WA, USA
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/EHZWQXXO4ANRXF6K7NHWSD3HYD5V7VWM/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
