I don't use isinstance() and type() at all, nor am I testing the type
of all variables being passed into function. What I'm arguing for here
is a semantic safety mechanism that is neither required, nor imposed.
Ultimately what it looks like what I'm proposing is a syntactic
shorthand for the adapt
This type of hinting would only break type ducking in-so-much as a
function that leveraged that hinting would be looking specifically for
an instance of a particular type, which would be absolutely no
different than a developer performing the type check manually and
throwing it out if the type were
Really what we're talking about here is weak typing in the form of
optional type hinting performed on a function by function basis. As an
option, what it would do is allow an author to semantically 'hint' to
the interpreter that a function is expecting a certain type, and
perform any implicit conv
Thanks for the info... Kinda comforting that Guido's syntactic ideas
were somewhat similar to my own.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Let me first say that I'm sure that this subject has come up before,
and so forgive me for beating a dead horse. Secondly, let me say that
Python's strength is its dynamic nature, and I don't believe that it
should ever require a precondition scaffolding. With that said, I do
believe that somethin
