Re: [Python-3000] Fwd: Conventions for annotation consumers

Nick Coghlan wrote: [Clipped other good points.] > 3. The question has been raised as to whether or not there is a practical way > for a developer to use annotations that make sense to a *static* analysis > tool > that doesn't actually execute the Python code > > If someone figures out a way

[Python-3000] signature annotation in the function signature or a separate line

Guido van Rossum wrote: >>But maybe I'm misremembering the discussion, maybe decorators make it >>very difficult to visually scan for function definitions, and maybe >>people want all that garbage in their function signature. > > > They don't want it, but if they're forced to have it occasionally

[Python-3000] int-long unification

Martin, I've thought about it more, and I think it's fine to use a single type. It will surely simplify many things, and that alone might help us win back some of the inefficiency this introduces. And it is best for Python-level users. Are you interested in doing this at the Google sprint next we

Re: [Python-3000] signature annotation in the function signature or a separate line

Samuele Pedroni wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> But maybe I'm misremembering the discussion, maybe decorators make it >>> very difficult to visually scan for function definitions, and maybe >>> people want all that garbage in their function signature. >> >> They don't want it, but if they're f

Re: [Python-3000] signature annotation in the function signature or a separate line

Nick Coghlan wrote: > > What would a separate sig expression buy you over defining "->expr" as a > special form of keyword argument that binds to the keyword name "return" > in the dictionary for storing extra keyword arguments? seems to me a quirky addition of sugar, also could not be limited;

Re: [Python-3000] signature annotation in the function signature or a separate line

Samuele Pedroni wrote: > Nick Coghlan wrote: > >>What would a separate sig expression buy you over defining "->expr" as a >>special form of keyword argument that binds to the keyword name "return" >>in the dictionary for storing extra keyword arguments? > > > seems to me a quirky addition of s

Re: [Python-3000] int-long unification

On 8/19/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin,I've thought about it more, and I think it's fine to use a singletype. It will surely simplify many things, and that alone might helpus win back some of the inefficiency this introduces. And it is best for Python-level users.Woohoo!  I

Re: [Python-3000] Fwd: Conventions for annotation consumers

On 8/19/06, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: @callmeta def foo( a: [ SetDoc("frobination count"), InRange(3,9) ],  b: InSet([4,8,12]) )  -> IsNumber:# codeWhat extra information or value does the callmeta decorator provide? For the sake of argument, I'll

Re: [Python-3000] Fwd: Conventions for annotation consumers

Paul Prescod wrote: > On 8/19/06, *Ron Adam* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > @callmeta > def foo( a: [ SetDoc("frobination count"), InRange(3,9) ], > b: InSet([4,8,12]) ) > -> IsNumber: > # code > > > Wha

Re: [Python-3000] int-long unification

On 8/19/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/19/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Martin, > > > > I've thought about it more, and I think it's fine to use a single > > type. It will surely simplify many things, and that alone might help > > us win back some of the

Re: [Python-3000] Fwd: Conventions for annotation consumers

On 8/19/06, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The callmeta decorator wouldn't provide any extra information itself,all it does is decorate(wrap) the functions so that the meta data getscalled.  It activates the meta data calls.I think we're using the word "metadata" differently. In my universe, m

Re: [Python-3000] Fwd: Conventions for annotation consumers

Paul Prescod wrote: > On 8/19/06, *Ron Adam* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > The callmeta decorator wouldn't provide any extra information itself, > all it does is decorate(wrap) the functions so that the meta data gets > called. It activates the meta data

Re: [Python-3000] Fwd: Conventions for annotation consumers

Paul Prescod wrote: > Given that that's the case, I guess I > don't understand the virtue of bringing decorators into the picture. > Yes, they are one consumer of metadata. Module-scoped functions are > another. Application scoped functions are another. Third party data > extraction programs ar