Koos Zevenhoven k7hoven at gmail.com
Sun Sep 4 14:40:55 EDT 2016

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivskyi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 September 2016 at 19:59, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Similarly, it would be reasonable to say that these three snippets
>> should all be equivalent from a typechecking perspective:
>>
>>     x = None # type: Optional[T]
>>
>>     x: Optional[T] = None
>>
>>     x: Optional[T]
>>     x = None
>
>
> Nice idea, explicit is better than implicit.
>

How is it going to help that these are equivalent within one checker,
if the meaning may differ across checkers?

-- Koos


> --
> Ivan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/k7hoven%40gmail.com
>



-- 
+ Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +

---

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Please reject or postpone PEP 526
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list