On 18/06/2018 01:10, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:07:40 PM UTC-5, Jim Lee wrote:
IMHO, trying to shoehorn static type checking on top of a dynamically
typed language shows that the wrong language was chosen for the job.
Exactly.
I'm not against the idea of Python growing a new feature.
Features are great. My objection is concerned merely with
the "how" it is implemented, not the "why" it was
implemented.
"Type-hint comments" would allow:
(1) those who need them, to use them.
(2) those who don't care about them, to totally ignore
them.
(3) and those who utterly *HATE* them, to write a simply
little function which will strip them from any and all
source code they might be forced to maintain.
Awwww. Isn't it cute, how he thinks that comments are easier to remove
than other elements equally well defined in the grammar?
You're right in that neither task is that trivial.
I can remove comments by writing a tokeniser which scans Python source
and re-outputs tokens one at a time. Such a tokeniser normally ignores
comments.
But to remove type hints, a deeper understanding of the input is needed.
I would need a parser rather than a tokeniser. So it is harder.
Both methods would fail with source code that exists as a string
constant (for exec() for example), or source code that is synthesised at
runtime.
--
bart
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
