Christopher Subich wrote: > Doesn't work; duck typing is emphatically not subclass-typing. For this > system to still work and be as general as Python is now (without having > to make all variables 'object's), we'd need true interface checking. > That is, we'd have to be able to say: > > implements + like int: a > > or somesuch. This is a Hard problem, and not worth solving for the > simple benefit of checking type errors in code. > > It might be worth solving for dynamic code optimization, but that's > still a ways off.
Correct, but he's just trolling you know. What he suggests isn't static typing, and he knows it. It gives all the rigidity of static typing with only a tiny fraction of the claimed benefits, but it would give a hefty performance penalty. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
