On 2021-12-10 at 20:20:05 +0000, deavid <deavidsed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A lot of you are referring to scripting, learning, and other ways of > using Python that would be badly impacted. I already acknowledged that > these exist (or at least I didn't notice here any other that I wasn't > aware), and that's why I mentioned that there should be a way to avoid > type-enforcing for these scenarios. Maybe by flag, by Python version, > file extension... The method doesn't matter much at this moment. If > it were "easy" to continue writing the old programs without types, > what's the problem in trying to make types more popular? I concede that certain programmers believe that type declarations and static type checking are unilaterally and universally beneficial, and that's why I think that there should be a way to request type-enforcing for these scenarios. Maybe by flag, by Python version, file extension... The method doesn't matter, because in all my decades of writing software, in a dozen or more languages, getting the types right at coding time has never been an issue. It's very easy to get type checking if you want it, what's the problem in trying to make types more popular? [insert your own perfect-joking-serious-balance emoticon (no emoji, please!) here] _______________________________________________ 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/LQ4CQOKHQXI6QTTYSFFCXPVZR26W3MPI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
