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
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
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
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
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
