Optional Static Typing: Part II

[Roman Suzi]

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, John Roth wrote:

>Guido has posted a second blog entry on the optional static typing
>initiative.
>I like this a lot better than the first.

Declarative approach is even more human-oriented than algorithmic one.
If Python is to support declarations, let it support declarative programming
paradigm with full-blown inference engine </joke>.

So, why not add some logic approach to type declarations? I hope
that "type" is understood in a generic programming way: it will be a
big win for Python to provide grounds for GP 'concept' concept ;)
Why not? Python program right now are nearer to GP than C++'s.
'Concept' is not mere "interface", but interface + semantic behaviour.
And to describe that behaviour logic is needed (right now it could be done
with asserts).

I propose to skip 'interface' support with Python and go stright to
GP concepts :>

This way Python will be ahead with innovation and type/interface/concept
declarations will not be seen as atavisms but a step forward from OOP.

I hope GvR waited so long not implementing interfaces to implement something
better, concepts for example ;-) Right now concepts are expressed informally
in the docstrings.


Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
-- 
rnd at onego.ru =\= My AI powered by GNU/Linux RedHat 7.3