Le Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:10:47 +0100, Philippe Fremy a �crit :
>
>> Frequently, in Python, code which checks for types, rather than
>> checking for features, ends up being excessively restrictive and
>> insufficiently general.
>
snip
>
> Enforcing types also brings the benefit that the program is more
> deterministic. In my experience, there is a lot more benefits to have an
> object whose type is clearly identified than to have function that
> accepts generic objects.
If you insist to always have only clearly identified types of variables
you will use the Hungarian notation :
bool bIsDir = blah
const char *lpszMessage = "It's a directory";
>
> I would go as far as saying that variables should have immutable types.
> It is more restricting that what python provides currently, but leads to
> clearer programming practice: the intent of the developer shows up in
> the type he uses.
clearer programming practice which goes with unreadable code ?
>
>
> While Python's dynamic typing liberty is enjoyable, I think it harms
> when you start to work on big projects. It prevents you to put many
> safety assumptions which might bite you back.
Python is strongly typed (at run-time). You can get a traceback sure but
it is rather difficult to get unreliable results.
>
> regards,
>
> Philippe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
