This discussion should move to the types-sig, types-sig@[...].org,
http://www.python.org/sigs/types-sig/.  I am cross posting to the
types sig.  Replies to this message should be posted to
types-sig@[...].org and *not* to comp.lang.python.

Gordon McMillan wrote:
>  
>  Paul Prescod writes:
>  ...
>  > By default, Python will be
>  > dynamic and sections can be made static in order to increase their
>  > safety or performance. If that can avoid the need to create a C
>  > extension even half of the time, it will have paid for itself. I
>  > would rather write my "inner loops" in statically typed Python than
>  > in C or Java.
>  
>  I wholeheartedly agree with Paul here. But I notice that his real
>  concern (like mine) appears to be "performance". I know that Roger
>  (and, I suspect, Jim F) are more concerned with "safety".

I'd like to draw a distinction between the interface proposal
and the "Optional Static Typing" proposal.  I think interfaces
would provide alot of benefits even if there were no argument/
variable type annotations.  Personally, I consider myself, uh, 
unenthusiastically open minded about "static typing".
 
>  My suspicion is that, after a brief honeymoon, these two concerns
>  will immediately start tugging in opposite directions. (Hmmm...  Jim
>  "The Bear" Fulton vs Jim "The Bee" Hugunin; could be
>  entertaining...).

I think they are two different problems and I expect different solutions.
They need not be competing.  If they are, then somethings wrong, IMO.

Jim


--
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim@[...].com
Technical Director   (888) 344-4332              Python Powered!
Digital Creations    http://www.digicool.com     http://www.python.org

Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email
address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my
permission.  Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will
result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for
repeats.