Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'from:addr:yahoo.co.uk': 0.04; 'static': 0.04; 'syntax': 0.04; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'purpose.': 0.07; '22,': 0.09; 'adopted': 0.09; 'lawrence': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'language.': 0.14; 'mode,': 0.16; 'opposite': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'sees': 0.16; 'thursday,': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'proposed': 0.22; 'header :User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header :In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'idea': 0.28; 'function': 0.29; 'specifically': 0.29; 'external': 0.29; 'direction': 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; 'checking.': 0.31; 'fine,': 0.31; 'alone': 0.33; '"the': 0.34; 'tool': 0.35; 'johnson': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'executing': 0.36; 'january': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'tools,': 0.38; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.38; "couldn't": 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'extended': 0.61; 'new': 0.61; 'day.': 0.63; 'our': 0.64; 'charset:windows-1252': 0.65; 'subject:! ': 0.74; 'analysis': 0.75; '2015': 0.84; 'analyzed': 0.84; 'injecting': 0.84; 'rick': 0.93 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Mark Lawrence Subject: Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:50:18 +0000 References: <54c07d04$0$13012$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <1939680766443642112.878725sturla.molden-gmail.com@news.gmane.org> <6eb91c4b-92ff-44a8-b5a9-6ef04c71f4cb@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-92-24-222-48.ppp.as43234.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 In-Reply-To: <6eb91c4b-92ff-44a8-b5a9-6ef04c71f4cb@googlegroups.com> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1421959834 news.xs4all.nl 2854 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:35028 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:84274 On 22/01/2015 20:44, Rick Johnson wrote: > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 12:28:47 PM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote: >> Evidence in completely the opposite direction if I'm >> reading this correctly [snip link] >> >> "The main use case of type hinting is static analysis >> using an external tool without executing the analyzed >> program. Existing tools used for that purpose like >> pyflakes [pyflakes] or pylint [pylint] might be extended >> to support type checking. New tools, like mypy's mypy -S >> mode, can be adopted specifically for this purpose. > > So if the purpose is "static analysis", what is the > justification for injecting new syntax into function sigs? > I'm not *TOTALLY* against the idea of "type hints", but i am > *TOTALLY* against their proposed location. > Fine, just write an alternative PEP. Personally I couldn't give one hoot let alone two whether or not this proposal ever sees the light of day. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence