Message316646
| Author | levkivskyi |
|---|---|
| Recipients | adelfino, cheryl.sabella, docs@python, gvanrossum, levkivskyi, lukasz.langa, matrixise, r.david.murray |
| Date | 2018-05-15.12:16:52 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1526386612.15.0.682650639539.issue32769@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
What I think Guido might mean is that some type annotations are not strictly speaking type hints. For example, `dataclasses.InitVar`, is not really a type, it is just a way to indicate how constructor should be constructed. I could see similar potential features in future (like `typing.Final` discussed recently). Even `typing.ClassVar` I would say is not a type but an access qualifier. Also for me the two terms: annotations and hints are a bit orthogonal, first is a syntax, while second is semantics. I think Guido is right that we should say something like (approximately) `annotation is a syntax to express type hints and other related metadata` or similar. The current formulation seems a bit too restrictive. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-05-15 12:16:52 | levkivskyi | set | recipients: + levkivskyi, gvanrossum, r.david.murray, docs@python, lukasz.langa, matrixise, cheryl.sabella, adelfino |
| 2018-05-15 12:16:52 | levkivskyi | set | messageid: <1526386612.15.0.682650639539.issue32769@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2018-05-15 12:16:52 | levkivskyi | link | issue32769 messages |
| 2018-05-15 12:16:52 | levkivskyi | create | |