On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:55:48PM +0200, Bjoern Schliessmann wrote: > I agree. I also notice that (rather newbie-) OPs with not-so-simple > questions are easily offended by technical answers. I'd love to > know why.
One doesn't like to get meta on such things, as so often happens, so I'll be brief. The way I read my original post was like so: "I know lots of people have probably had a similar question, so please point me to a canonical answer is there is one. So here's the question...". To me, an appropriate answer there is, "That's a good question, and many people have asked it. Here's why it's unlikely that static type-checking makes sense in the context of Python, and why it couldn't just be added in pieces." We got there eventually, but only after what seemed to me to be a bout of rudeness. Now, maybe my own followup clarified something that I should have included in the original. "Use another language" is not a technical answer. "Python could not adopt static typing without substantially changing the language and destroying what everyone loves about it, and here are examples of where the problem shows up" is. But I've just gone meta, so I'll stop. -- Stephen R. Laniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: +(617) 308-5571 http://laniels.org/ PGP key: http://laniels.org/slaniel.key -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
