Larry Hastings <[email protected]> wrote: > So here's the problem. Let's say you want to write an extension that will > work > with Python 3.3 and 3.4, using the stable ABI. If you don't add this line, > then in 3.4 you won't have introspection information, drat. But if you *do* > add this line, your docstring will look mildly stupid in 3.3, because it'll > have this unsightly "sig=(" line at the top. And it *won't* have a nice > handwritten docstring. (And if you added both a sig= signature *and* a > handwritten signature, in 3.4 it would display both. That would also look > dumb.)
I think we may slowly get into PEP territory here. Just imagine that we settle on X, then decide at a later point to have a standard way of adding type annotations, then find that X does not work because of (unknown). I'm mentioning this because signatures get really interesting for me if they contain type information. Stefan Krah _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com