In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Delaney, Timothy (Tim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > You can look at this, its API looks very well thought out to me: > > http://oakwinter.com/code/typecheck/ > > > >> Now, on the other hand, if we were to introduce a purely optional > >> type hint to the function prototype, such as follows: > >> def multiplyByTwo(value:int): return value * 2 > > > > I don't think Python will have something like this... > > It's actually something that has been being considered for Python 3.0 > for a long time. > > Search for `python optional static typing` for discussions - the first > two links from Google are blog entries by Guido from a year ago (there's > also a third one linked from PEP 3000). But surely, never with the proposed semantics (quoted to match [non]attribution), with automatic conversion of "14" to 14 -- > >> The python interpreter could do the work of casting the incoming > >> parameter to an int (if it is not already) before it is multipled, > >> resulting in the desired result or a typecasting error otherwise. > >> Furthermore, it could do it more efficiently than a developer having to > >> put conditional code at the beginning of traditionally typecasting > >> functions. I know awk works a bit like that, maybe Perl? but it's surely way out of place in Python. Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
