On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 10:04:29 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote: > It's worth pointing out, too, that the idea isn't > panaceaic - it's just another tool in the box. Any time > you break related things into separate places, especially > separate files, the tendency for them to get out of sync > grows dramatically.
I wonder how that "poor python interpreter" keeps all those .pyc and .pyo files in sync with constantly changing source code? It should be tantamount to torture! Will someone *PLEASE* start a charity site titled: "Python's sanity fund"? > Use of stub files for something that's only occasionally > run (the type-checking linter) increases the potential > time delay between the error and the fix. Unless you make > a git/hg hook that runs type checks, chances are you'll > have those issues in your code. > > Stub files are useful, but they aren't going to magically > solve everyone's complaints. We're not trying to solve everyone's complaints, we're trying to formulate a solution that will cause the least amount (or completely avert) violating Python's design philosophy. You act as if the "type hint fan-boys" are the *ONLY* side of this coin, well, i here to inform you that coins are two-sided! Even though type hints may be useful to many programmers, i'm sure equally as many will find no use for them. But emotion and opinions *ALONE* is not a wise basis for ANY decision making. Therefore, the "MANDATORY-STUB-FILE-SOLUTION" is the *ONLY* solution (offered so far) that can maintain Python's philosophical goals whilst appeasing both sides of this two faced coin. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
