> There's nothing like this in any type system I've seen. A struct with a generic amount of properties? Nonexistent. This isn't personal. This is the definition of a tuple. A tuple is a struct with no names. It is not a personal opinion.
I have literally shown you two type systems that have this feature. Why do you ignore them?
> You can have generic functions that operate on generic types but there's no such thing as a struct with generic amount of properties. Closest thing is a list.
Why are you acting like TypeVarTuples don't exist?
> This isn't an opinion. There's no such thing as tuple types of arbitrary length unless the implementer decides to get hand wavy with the definition of what a tuple is.
Again, why are you acting like TypeVarTuples don't exist?
> Arrays are the thing you want for variadic containers. For memory optimized languages like rust or C++ arrays are defined with a size. Array[5] is a different type then Array[3]
No, they are not, and I don't understand how you still don't get that. Python arrays don't carry any information about their length in their type, Python tuples do. They are not the same.
> but you can't define the function above where a function creates a new type that's dependent on the internal types of a and b.
Python literally already supports typing a function that creates a type that's dependent on the internal types of a and b. Why do you keep claiming it doesn't?
I have literally shown you two type systems that have this feature. Why do you ignore them?
> You can have generic functions that operate on generic types but there's no such thing as a struct with generic amount of properties. Closest thing is a list.
Why are you acting like TypeVarTuples don't exist?
> This isn't an opinion. There's no such thing as tuple types of arbitrary length unless the implementer decides to get hand wavy with the definition of what a tuple is.
Again, why are you acting like TypeVarTuples don't exist?
> Arrays are the thing you want for variadic containers. For memory optimized languages like rust or C++ arrays are defined with a size. Array[5] is a different type then Array[3]
No, they are not, and I don't understand how you still don't get that. Python arrays don't carry any information about their length in their type, Python tuples do. They are not the same.
> but you can't define the function above where a function creates a new type that's dependent on the internal types of a and b.
Python literally already supports typing a function that creates a type that's dependent on the internal types of a and b. Why do you keep claiming it doesn't?