In article <54c980cd$0$12981$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>, steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info says... > > Ian, that's obvious. Just open your eyes: > > Scala > def addInt( a:Int, b:Int ) : Int > > Python > def addInt( a:int, b:int ) -> int: > > > They're COMPLETELY different. In Scala they are *type declarations*, not > annotations. We're talking about annotations, not declarations. They're as > different as cheese and a very slightly different cheese. Do try to keep > up. > > *wink*
The sarcasm is unnecessary. They are different yes. Are you on purpose confusing the syntax of a feature with its meaning? Because while you have a very similar syntax between Julia, Scala and Python. Their meanings are very different. I think it is obvious to anyone that if a feature like type annotations are meant to be EVALUATED AT RUNTIME (and I myself gave you another example of Julia), it makes every sense for that feature to be a part of the programming language syntax. I could never argue against Julia or Scala type annotations on that basis. The syntax is an integral part of the executable code. But when a feature is not meant for runtime evaluation, why should it clutter your executable code? Make me understand your reasoning? Your list of programming languages is just plain wrong. To my knowledge (there's a few languages there I don't know and never used), none of those languages implement anything like Python. Type annotations in python are entirely ignored by the interpreter except to make them available to external libraries. This is a feature that I have seen implemented in numerous languages as a part of doc-like comments. Never, ever, as a part ofthe language syntax. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
