Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat Sep 3 08:26:07 EDT 2016

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [erratum] Emotional responses to PEPs 484 and 526
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 526 ready for review: Syntax for Variable and Attribute Annotations
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On 3 September 2016 at 02:17, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> Pinning down the semantics is not why I am pushing for PEP 526 -- I
> only want to pin down the *syntax* to the point where we won't have to
> change it again for many versions, since it's much harder to change
> the syntax than it is to change the behavior of type checkers (which
> have fewer backwards compatibility constraints, a faster release
> cycle, and narrower user bases than core Python itself).

+1 from me as well for omitting any new type semantics that aren't
absolutely necessary from the PEP (i.e. nothing beyond ClassVar) - I
only figured it was worth bringing up here as the question had already
arisen.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

---

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] [erratum] Emotional responses to PEPs 484 and 526
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] PEP 526 ready for review: Syntax for Variable and Attribute Annotations
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list