Re: [RFC] Mixed Typehint

Hi! > Why document code? It contributes nothing to the behavior of the code, > well, unless you parse it as annotations. I am not sure I understand - are you arguing for supporting "mixed" in *documentation*? Then it's already supported and there's no need for any RFC. But if you're arguing for supporting it in the code, it's useless and has nothing to do with documentation - which you'd have to write anyway. > The current one isn't any convention, it's just not possible to do > something else. There's nothing that explicitly allows saying "I accept > all types", rather than "The type I accept is unspecifed". There could be of course logical constructions that are not supported by the type system. "mixed" however has the accepted meaning - and that meaning is exactly the same as not specifying the type. I do not see any additional use of type that only means "unspecified type" - it looks like its sole reason is so that somebody could say "I now have lots of types in my code!" which does not seem to me a worthy goal. Types should serve a purpose, this one serves none. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com