[Types-sig] The Types-SIG is comatose. Let's retire it.

[Paul Prescod]

I'm not speaking on behalf of or in favor of the types-sig.

mengx@nielsenmedia.com wrote:
> 
> Perhaps this proved trying to (optionally) adding TYPEs to python language
> itself to  be unpopular. 

I don't think so. I think that there were just too many ideas of how it
should work. I think that's why revoluationary programming language
features cannot be designed by committee.

> Or instead of diving into uncertain
> langauge research, accept and enhance CXX to ease the extension writing,
> which may solve many issues related to the need of TYPED python

I don't see how CXX can help. Python programmers choose not to program
C++ for a reason.

Here's an approach that we didn't try because it is likely to be wildly
unpopular:

There exists a popular programming language that uses optional type
checking and is nearly as dynamic as Python: Visual Basic. The overall
type system is weak, (e.g. no concept of common interface) but the
optional type checking part seems to work pretty well. We wouldn't have
to do "uncertain language research" to rip its behavior (and even some
of its syntax) off. It strikes me as a pretty common sense approach.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
"I always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more
specific." --Lily Tomlin