I've merged this into PEP 484 now. The informal term used there is
actually "unique type" which is fine. End of discussion please.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Bernardo Sulzbach
wrote:
> On 06/01/2016 09:44 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Everyone on the mypy team has a different opinion so
On 06/01/2016 09:44 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Everyone on the mypy team has a different opinion so the search is on. :-(
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Hai Nguyen wrote:
I am +1 for DistinctType (vs others) (no specific reason, just read out
loud).
At least on this thread it seems like (
I am +1 for DistinctType (vs others) (no specific reason, just read out
loud).
Hai
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Unless Jukka objects I am going with "distinct type" when discussing
> the feature but NewType() in code.
>
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
> __
Everyone on the mypy team has a different opinion so the search is on. :-(
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Hai Nguyen wrote:
> I am +1 for DistinctType (vs others) (no specific reason, just read out
> loud).
>
> Hai
>
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Unless Jukka objec
Unless Jukka objects I am going with "distinct type" when discussing
the feature but NewType() in code.
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsub
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> On 31 May 2016 3:12 pm, "Glenn Linderman" g.nevcal.com> wrote:
> > On 5/31/2016 12:55 PM, rndblnch wrote:
> >> Guido van Rossum gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Also -- the most important thing. What to call these things?
[...]
> > Interesting! Prior art.
