On 2020-02-10 2:03 a.m., Anders Hovmöller wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2020, at 04:18, Soni L. wrote:
>
> Traits are composition tho. I think you missed something I said.
In that case I think we all missed it and then isn't that on you? Remember it
is you who are trying to convince the list so any
> On 10 Feb 2020, at 04:18, Soni L. wrote:
>
> Traits are composition tho. I think you missed something I said.
In that case I think we all missed it and then isn't that on you? Remember it
is you who are trying to convince the list so any information missed or
misunderstood is your
On 2020-02-09 5:31 p.m., Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 7:21 AM Soni L. wrote:
>
> > Maybe if you had a good example that wasn’t an implicit type cast, this
similarity would be an argument against using annotations rather than an argument for
using them? But it’s hard to know
>>> On Feb 9, 2020, at 12:20, Soni L. wrote:
>> On 2020-02-09 4:46 p.m., Andrew Barnert wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 2020, at 05:40, Soni L. wrote:
I'd rather have arg decorators tbh. they feel more natural than hacking on
the type annotations.
>> Annotations look a lot more natural to me
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 7:21 AM Soni L. wrote:
>
> > Maybe if you had a good example that wasn’t an implicit type cast, this
> > similarity would be an argument against using annotations rather than an
> > argument for using them? But it’s hard to know without seeing such an
> > example, or
On 2020-02-09 4:46 p.m., Andrew Barnert wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 05:40, Soni L. wrote:
>
> I'd rather have arg decorators tbh. they feel more natural than hacking on the type annotations.
Annotations look a lot more natural to me here.
Maybe that’s because your only example (besides
On Feb 9, 2020, at 11:49, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>
> If there isn’t a library that puts it all together the way you want
I figured there probably was, so I decided to take a look. I got a whole page
of possibly useful things, and the first one I looked at, typical, shows this
as its first
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 05:40, Soni L. wrote:
>
> I'd rather have arg decorators tbh. they feel more natural than hacking on
> the type annotations.
Annotations look a lot more natural to me here.
Maybe that’s because your only example (besides the useless original one) looks
like an implicit
On 2020-02-09 10:28 a.m., Anders Hovmöller wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2020, at 14:01, Soni L. wrote:
>
>
> into this:
>
> [snip]
>
> def my_fn(@MyTrait x):
> x.x()
Can't you look at typing info or something instead? That is a lot of
boilerplate and ceremony even after your proposed
> On 9 Feb 2020, at 14:01, Soni L. wrote:
>
>
> into this:
>
> [snip]
>
> def my_fn(@MyTrait x):
> x.x()
Can't you look at typing info or something instead? That is a lot of
boilerplate and ceremony even after your proposed addition.
So:
@traits
def my_fn(x: MyTrait):
x.x()
/
On 2020-02-09 9:44 a.m., Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 2/9/2020 7:34 AM, Soni L. wrote:
I propose that:
def foo(print(x)):
pass
becomes:
def foo(x):
x = print(x)
pass
or, alternatively we could have decorators in function args:
def foo(@print x):
pass
which would probably be more
On 2/9/2020 7:34 AM, Soni L. wrote:
I propose that:
def foo(print(x)):
pass
becomes:
def foo(x):
x = print(x)
pass
or, alternatively we could have decorators in function args:
def foo(@print x):
pass
which would probably be more aligned with the rest of python actually.
anyway,
12 matches
Mail list logo
