In article <mailman.18187.1422393854.18130.python-l...@python.org>, ros...@gmail.com says... > > Sure you can! But this is *itself* a weak argument, unless you > actually have a codebase that uses it.
Wait. Are you saying that unless I show you a codebase that requires marshalling and static analysis, you will ignore the fact that a project, no matter its size, may require more than one annotation type? In other words, lets suggest function annotations as a restrictive feature, instead of a feature that can adapt to more than one use case. > YAGNI comes to mind. When do > you actually need to annotate with multiple styles like this, and > should everyone pay the price (the disconnect from from the function > name) even though this is almost never needed? That is your price. My price is seeing my executable code cluttered with static fluff. Very pythonesc, I suppose... -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
