On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:07 PM Rob Cliffe Co<rob.cli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > On 29/05/2021 00:51, micro codery wrote: > > > I also don't know what should happen for complicated assignments, and I > think this > has been the death of such variable decorator discussions in the past, so > I would > still push for only bare identifiers, with or without a type hint (but > maybe it will be > better received by more if the type hint is required?). > > Please, please, please, don't ever make type hints *required*! Some of us > are perfectly happy not using them (and not having to learn them)! > > Rob Cliffe > Fair enough! If this became accepted syntax I would use it without type hints. Even for those of us that do use type hints in places, it shouldn’t generally be necessary because the decorator will have a return type annotation. I think the original argument was that currently bare identifiers are not allowed unless they have annotation. But this is introducing a new multiline syntax, and it makes no more sense to take away the second line and expect a naked decorator to be valid than it does remove the decorator and expect the naked identifier to be valid.
_______________________________________________ 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/C75N2LH5AY46E6UNTEJPNQLV2HL3TBDI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
