Missing exceptions in PEP 3107

[Carl Banks]

Re: Missing exceptions in PEP 3107

On Aug 17, 9:34 am, Christoph Zwerschke <c...@online.de wrote:

Carl Banks schrieb:
>

You are free to use it for other things.  For example, the following
usage is obvious and sensible (insofar as listing exceptions is
sensible):

>

def f(x : int) -int, raises(TypeErro r)

>

Think of the return value annotation as more of a function outcome
annotation.

>
That's fine, but then this should be mentioned in the PEP3107.

Evidently the thing that really needs to be mentioned in the PEP is
"don't be pedantic".

Instead
it says explicitly that the "->" syntax is for "the type of a function's
return value". If it's intended to be used in a more general way like
you suggested, then the wording used in the PEP is misleading. (The
wording "*the* type is problematic anyway, since a Python function can
return different types in different situations.)

For some reason, you keep trying to interpret the PEP's description as
policy.

Once again: the PEP disclaims all authority on policy. If the PEP
intended you to use the annotations only for what it said the
annotations were for, then it wouldn't have disclaimed that authority.

It's still unclear for me whether annotations on thrown exceptions are
included in PEP3107 (as per your suggestion), or are not covered by
PEP3107 at all (as Duncan suggests), or whether this question has just
not yet been settled.

According to the PEP you can do anything you want with the
annotations. PEP 3107 does not specify policy. There is no question
to settle.

If it bothers you that much, go file a bug report. Someone might even
change it. But it's nothing but needless pedantry.


Carl Banks

[Christoph Zwerschke]

Re: Missing exceptions in PEP 3107

Carl Banks wrote:

If it bothers you that much, go file a bug report. Someone might even
change it. But it's nothing but needless pedantry.

Has my "de" domain inspired you to rant about "pedantry"? No, it does
not bother me that much. I just thought the PEP could be clearer here
and explicitly mention the thrown exceptions as a use case instead of
only speaking about return values. Of course, if you're Dutch, it may be
obvious, but for a dimwitted German things are not always obvious.

-- Christoph

[Carl Banks]

Re: Missing exceptions in PEP 3107

On Aug 17, 7:25 pm, Christoph Zwerschke <c...@online.de wrote:

Carl Banks wrote:

If it bothers you that much, go file a bug report.  Someone might even
change it.  But it's nothing but needless pedantry.

>
Has my "de" domain inspired you to rant about "pedantry"?

Actually, no.


Carl Banks

P.S. My great-grandfather's surname was "von Bank" when he emigrated
to America.