[Types-sig] List of FOO

[Tim Peters]

[John Skaller]
> ...
> If I can summarise: there is considerable advantage using
> arbitrary objects as type objects: they can be specified
> using EXISTING python syntax, using the power of the EXISTING
> python interpreter, without needing a special, second class
> language, to complicate python, and pose an additional
> implementation overhead.

One of the groundrules here is that the SIG's work cannot require importing
(or executing via any other means) modules.  It *may* be OK to compile them
and deviously suck out their code objects for inspection, but execution is
forbidden.

That's why a "special, second class language" is attractive, provided it's
recognizable as such:  it can be analyzed without execution.  If types are
arbitrary run-time objects-- and *especially* if they "use the power of the
... Python interpreter", I don't see how the compilation process could get
*at* them without execution.

statically y'rs  - tim