On 29/05/2021 01:26, micro codery wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:07 PM Rob Cliffe
Co<rob.cli...@btinternet.com <mailto: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.
I think I'm missing something (no, NOT just my marbles, something else
😁). Do you mean bare unbound identifiers?
spam = 'eggs'
spam # No problem
Rob Cliffe
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/DKU5YRG42H222RK2EC7USUHB6O72HOXB/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
