In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, it's interesting to consider the work that sometimes needs to > go in to specify data structures in some languages - thinking of ML > and friends, as opposed to Java and friends. The campaign for optional > static typing in Python rapidly became bogged down in this matter, > fearing that any resulting specification for type information might > not be the right combination of flexible and powerful to fit in with > the rest of the language, and that's how we really ended up with PEP > 3107: make the semantics vague and pretend it has nothing to do with > types, thus avoiding the issue completely. I missed the campaign for optional static typing, must have been waged in the developer list. Unless it was not much more than some on-line musings from GvR a year or two ago. I don't see how it could ever get anywhere without offending a lot of the Python crowd, however well designed, so I can see why someone might try to sneak it past by pretending it has nothing to do with types. But he didn't -- look at the examples, I think he rather overstates the potential for static typing applications. Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
