On Jun 20, 7:53 pm, Stephen R Laniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Before I ask anything, let me note that this is surely an > old question that has inspired its share of flame wars; I'm > new to Python, but not new to how Internet discussions work. > So if there's a canonical thread or web page that documents > the whole battle, feel free to point me to it. > > Reading [1], I wonder: why isn't the compiler making better > use of (purely optional) type labeling? Why not make a compiler > directive so that > > a) it will check the types of all my arguments and return > values, and maybe even > b) do some type inference up the call stack? > > E.g., > > def( Class1 arg1, Class2 arg2, ..., ClassN argN ): > someStuff() > > would check the types of the arguments, whereas > > def( arg1, arg2, ..., argN): > someStuff() > > would not? I.e., if I *want* strong static > type-checking, why shouldn't I be able to get it? Is it that > allowing this as a compile-time option would mess up too > many knobs to make it optional? > > Again, probably an old debate. I'd like to know why Guido's > decided that not only is strong static typing > productivity-reducing [2], but that it should be *forbidden*. > > [1] -http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/ > [2] -http://www.artima.com/intv/strongweakP.html > > -- > Stephen R. Laniel > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cell: +(617) 308-5571http://laniels.org/ > PGP key:http://laniels.org/slaniel.key
have you seen language Boo? It adds static typing to Python inspired syntax: http://boo.codehaus.org/ - Paddy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
