[Types-sig] Syntax

[Tim Peters]

[Paul Prescod]
> ...
> In fact, I don't see a lot of difference between the widely
> embraced Tim-syntax and the syntax I posted a few days ago
> (based on the Tim-syntax).

Me neither.

> But if putting the keyword "decl:" in front makes it feel
> better then I'm all for that!

Ditto if taking "decl" away makes people feel better.  I'm getting an
increasingly strong suspicion that what I've had in mind doesn't match what
*anybody* here has been talking about, though!  That is, as covered in
earlier msgs tonight, I've taken it as a given that type declarations must
be fully identifiable and evaluable at compile time, without code execution.
The real point of slopping "decl" in front of everything was to add just one
new "compile time" keyword and statement (Guido's happiness will be
proportional to 1./math.e**k, where k == the number of new keywords <wink>).

> I'm still thinking that it should go in another file because I
> want to be able to experiment with this stuff WITHOUT maintaining
> a new Python interpreter binary.

I don't know what people are arguing about here.  We'll need a separate file
to declare the signatures of stuff supplied by C modules anyway.

good-enough-to-start-with!-ly y'rs  - tim