On 11/26/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 26, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On 11/24/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Obviously signature objects would grow support for annotations, but I
> > still need the information to be carried on the code object t
On Nov 26, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On 11/24/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously signature objects would grow support for annotations,
but I
> still need the information to be carried on the code object to
> incorporate into signature objects.
>
Signature obj
On 11/24/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously signature objects would grow support for annotations, but I
> still need the information to be carried on the code object to
> incorporate into signature objects.
>
Signature objects still need a way to know the nested parameters,
On 11/24/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:30 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > (It does imply that we can't use "-> None" to indicate "returns no
> > value". We'd have to spell that as "-> type(None)" or find some other
> > way. I think I don't care. Do others? Colli
> Obviously signature objects would grow support for annotations, but I
> still need the information to be carried on the code object to
> incorporate into signature objects.
>
Signature objects still need a way to know the nested parameters, right?
How about a co_argnames attribute? eg for
def f
Andrew Koenig wrote:
> def foo(a: T1) -> T2:
>
> I am presumably going to accept an argument of type T1 or a type derived
> from T1,
You're making assumptions about the semantics of the
annotations here, which I thought wasn't going to be
done.
--
Greg
_
> Hm, I think it would be fine if there *was* no distinction. IOW if
>
> def foo(a: None) -> None: pass
>
> was indistinguishable from
>
> def foo(a): pass
>
> In fact I think I'd prefer it that way. Having an explicit way to say
> "no type here, move along" sounds fine.
I'd like to urge again
On 11/24/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/24/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/23/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 11/23/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I have a working optional argument syntax implementation, I'm
> f.func_annotations
>> {'x': 1}
>
> Very cool! I agree that Phillip's idea for simplification is worth a
> try. We're generally not too concerned over the cost of function
> declarations since they typically execute only once per program. As
> long as it's really cheap when no annotations are
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:30 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> I would rather see it integrated into a Signature object (Brett
>> had an
>> implementation), instead of showing up as two separate attributes.
>
> Yes, you're right; I forgot about that.
>
I'd imagine that the Signature object would live
On 11/24/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/23/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/23/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have a working optional argument syntax implementation, I'm hoping
> > > to get some direction on
> > > the implementation de
On 11/23/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/23/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have a working optional argument syntax implementation, I'm hoping
> > to get some direction on
> > the implementation decisions so far please see below.
I would rather see it i
On 11/23/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a working optional argument syntax implementation, I'm hoping
> to get some direction on
> the implementation decisions so far please see below.
Wow!
> Python 3.0x (p3yk:52824M, Nov 23 2006, 09:22:23)
> [GCC 3.4.4 20050721 (Red Hat
On Nov 23, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Why not just have the generated bytecode construct the annotation
> dictionary directly and assign it to the returned function's
> func_annotations, and the same for func_return if needed? Then
> there'd be no need to change the MAKE_FU
At 10:00 AM 11/23/2006 -0800, Tony Lownds wrote:
>I have a working optional argument syntax implementation, I'm hoping
>to get some direction on
>the implementation decisions so far please see below.
Why not just have the generated bytecode construct the annotation
dictionary directly and ass
I have a working optional argument syntax implementation, I'm hoping
to get some direction on
the implementation decisions so far please see below.
Python 3.0x (p3yk:52824M, Nov 23 2006, 09:22:23)
[GCC 3.4.4 20050721 (Red Hat 3.4.4-2)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "licens
16 matches
Mail list logo
