Guido has proposed a syntax for type annotations in Python-3000.
Example:
def foo(x: t1, y: t2) -> t3:
...body...
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=87182
The types are dynamic and there is significant execution of code prior
to the function body being called. Which tends to make the above closer
to a decorator than a static type declaration. That being so, it
occurred to me that perhaps an argument decorator would be more general
and perhaps less restrictive. The example using decorators:
def foo(@T1 x, @t2 y) @ t3:
...body...
The compiler would do something like this:
def foo__(x, y): # original function
...body...
def foo(x, y): # wrapper function
x = T1.__decarg__(foo_, x)
y = t2.__decarg__(foo_, y)
r = foo__(x, y)
return t3.__decreturn___(foo__, r)
More examples:
def func(@between(1,400) x) @bool : # between checks input range
def func(@NotNone x): # x must be a real object
def func(@long x) @coerce(float): # coerce forces type conversion
def func(@sequence s, @function fn) @sequence: # more abstract types
To someone used to reading decorators, the @ character is a flag that
some kind of dynamic magic is being run. So IMHO using @ here too is
consistent with its existing usage.
Argument decorators would be an object (not a function) with methods
corresponding to their usage:
class T1(object):
def __decarg__(self, function, arg): # returns arg
def __decreturn__(self, function, arg): # returns arg
This will allow existing types to be used if they implement these
methods:
def bar(@int x, @float y) @float :
...body...
Because this syntax is just a decorator, you could use or abuse it as
you wished.
So you could define and use your own type-checking classes and
semantics:
def bar(@StrictlyInt x, @DuckCompatibleSequence seq) :
...body...
Since the decorator is an *object*, not a function, we could add other
methods for use by IDEs for intellisense etc.
Any views on this? Something to put forward to the python-3000 list
maybe?
