Paul Ganssle writes: > If you didn't already know what the square brackets did, how would > you try and find out?
First I'd look it up in Python Essential Reference (Hi, @dabeaz! it won't be there, though ;-). Then I'd go to the Language Reference for "def" and "class". And if that failed, then I'd go buy Barry Warsaw lunch. OK, not everybody has a personal relationship with senior core devs, but is asking people to read the Language Reference really so bad? > An additional benefit is that I find some of these examples to be a bit > visually cluttered with all the syntax: > > def func1[T](a: T) -> T: ... # OK > class ClassA[S, T](Protocol): ... # OK Looks like the boomer version (square*) of C++ template variables. Of course, people learn Python to escape from C++, so maybe that's not persuasive. * telling you how old I am without telling you how ooooold I am > Which would look less cluttered with a prefix clause: > > @with type T def func1(a: T) -> T: ... # OK > @with type S @with type T class ClassA(Protocol): ... # OK For me, that's absolutely awful from a readability standpoint. Put the "def" or "class" 10-20 characters in from the margin? I guess "stacked" it's no less readable than any decorator, but I also don't like overloading the well-defined decorator notation with magic. @with type T def func1(a: T) -> T: ... # OK @with type S @with type T class ClassA(Protocol): ... # OK A thought: would it be possible to actually make it a with statement? with Typevar() as T: def func1(a: T) -> T Of course there might have to be magic in Typevar, but it would be far more palatable to me than giving unary @ two kinds of magic. IMO YMMV of course. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/UTVCFIZ4CM3362JANAOBPEGJUTAWKSCI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/