PEP 646: Add note of alternatives that exist #1884
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
gvanrossum
approved these changes
Mar 22, 2021
pradeep90
reviewed
Mar 22, 2021
|
Sorry! I forgot about this one. Hopefully no Sc members printed a copy of the pep to review at their leisure. :-) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A pretty reasonable reason for the SC to reject PEP 646 would be that alternatives for shape checking do already exist; let's be honest about that.
But let's also highlight the difference to the alternatives out there: static checking, enabled by the beginnings of a standard that can act as a central point of reference.
@pradeep90 Do you wanna take a look over this? Maybe I've gone too far; my late-night writing can be a bit hit or miss...