Skip to content

Conversation

@mrahtz
Copy link
Contributor

@mrahtz mrahtz commented Mar 20, 2021

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...

Copy link
Member

@gvanrossum gvanrossum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This reads fine -- I just have one question.

@gvanrossum gvanrossum merged commit 701678f into python:master Apr 1, 2021
@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants