[Cython] Prototype for parametrized types

[Dag Sverre Seljebotn]

> Regarding function parameters, yes, so that's definitely an advantage. But
> that does not yet give you type annotations for variables. If I understand the
> original proposal right, those would become
>
>    cdef type.param(1,2,3) varname
>   
This is going to be a repeat of what Robert already said, but I feel it 
is important that the point gets through:

The original proposal did not say anything about how to declare a 
variable. It does a) say something about how to declare/use a type, 
anywhere a type might be needed, b) use the current syntax for the 
examples, because using a non-current syntax for examples would be silly 
(where would one stop? type inference is a real possibility, should I 
assume that for the examples?)

We all agree that decorating variables in real Python is a real problem, 
but this proposal doesn't change anything for better or worse 
considering that. What this proposal says is that, given a hyopthetical 
CEP102 that proposes the following syntax for declaring types of 
in-function variables:

i = typed(int)

then a consequence of my proposal is that it is legal to also say

v = typed(cpp.vector(int))

On the other hand, if the hypothetical CEP103 gets accepted instead 
which says "screw Python syntax" and makes it

i: int

also inside functions, then a consequence of my proposal is that it is 
legal to also say

v: cpp.vector(int)

inside functions. See how they are orthogonal, to use Robert's phrase?

I'm sorry if the proposal was unclear about this.

Dag Sverre