Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > "Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | David Hopwood wrote: > | > > | > A type system that required an annotation on all subprograms that do not > | > provably terminate, OTOH, would not impact expressiveness at all, and > would > | > be very useful. > | > | Interesting. I have always imagined doing this by allowing an > | annotation on all subprograms that *do* provably terminate. If > | you go the other way, you have to annotate every function that > | uses general recursion (or iteration if you swing that way) and that > | seems like it might be burdensome. Further, it imposes the > | annotation requirement even where the programer might not > | care about it, which the reverse does not do. > > simple things should stay simple. Recursions that provably terminate > are among the simplest ones. Annotations in those cases could be > allowed, but not required. Otherwise the system might become very > irritating to program with.
Yes, exactly my point. Marshall -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
