[Types-sig] Issue: definition of "type"

[Paul Prescod]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 
> Paul Prescod wrote:
> [snip]
> > I'm on the fence about this last requirement because I would like to
> > think that all of the code out there with class statements is *already*
> > defining a bunch of types. A minority of it depends on runtime
> > information and we can easily detect those cases. So why not let the
> > simple case of "defined class that doesn't depend on runtime
> > information" be a shortcut for a type declaration?
> 
> Are you sure that in fact a minority depends on runtime information?

Note that I'm saying that the vast majority of Python classes are
statically declared, not that the vast majority of Python *code* is
statically type checkable.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
The occasional act of disrespect for the American flag creates but a 
flickering insult to the values of democracy -- unless it provokes 
America into limiting the freedoms that are its hallmark.
           -- Paul Tash, executive editor of the St. Petersburg Times