Well somewhat[0], but the main putative benefit would be having types be valid expressions in the target language, since you can do type-checking with function decorators, and generally interact with types useing the normal language mechanism for interacting with values, rather than some horrid bolted-on piece of crap like C++ templates.
Server = Tuple[Address,ConnectionOptions] # array subscipt might not the best choice here, but it works
UserId = NewType('UserId',int) # ordinary function call
Scalar = int | str # could be equivalent to Union[int,str] with appropriate value of Type.__or__
def intBit(N):
if N==0: return type(None)
if N==1: return Bool
if N>INT_WIDTH: return long
return int error:invalid type comment or annotation
note:Suggestion: use intBit[...] instead of intBit(...)
And even if the code were valid, it's relying on N being a statically known value, which is a bit off because sure, you could have N be some global const config variable, but it would be very weird for configuring the value of the variable to require you to also go into the code and change things around to work with bool's or None's instead of int's.
Yeah, that sounds about par for the course for bolt-on static-y typing in languages that aren't supposed to be statically typed.
The extra [ is not a typo, the syntax is: `Callable[[Arg1Type, Arg2Type], ReturnType]`. Or, if the arguments don't matter, `Callable[..., ReturnType]`, but this does not mean that the type is not a valid expression.
Edit: I was missing a ] actually, separating the arguments from the return value.