On Aug 29, 2019, at 12:09, Dominik Vilsmeier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What about using `(int, str)` for indicating a `Union`? This doesn't have
> compatibility issues and it's similar to `isinstance(foo, (int, str))`, so it
> should be fairly intuitive:
>
> def bar(foo: (int, str) = 0):
> ...
In most languages with similar-ish type syntax, (int, str) means Tuple[int,
str], not Union[int, str]. Scala and TypeScript copied this from ML just like
Haskell and F# did. And I’d bet this is the main reason that {str, int} rather
than (str, int) was proposed the first time around.
But, balanced against the long-standing Python-specific use of tuples for small
numbers of alternatives, including alternative types in places like isinstance,
except, etc.? Maybe that beats the cross-linguistic issue.
Either one seems a lot better than breaking backward compatibility by adding
new operator methods to the type type.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/XBSF3IU5SMIQZS527M6TXV5KOFRZXYXF/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
