Your point about wanting a way to use an unqualified name as a value
pattern is not unreasonable, and as you may recall we had an elegant
solution in version 1 of the PEP: a leading dot. However that was booed
away by the critics, and there has been no consensus (not even close) on
what to do inste
> `np` analogue is quite a stretch and far-fetched, really.
I don't disagree. But `_` is a valid identifier so it shouldn't be
special. The solution is incredibly simple: allow repeated identifiers just
like in assignment so there is no need for a special wildcard symbol.
> ..
I disagree
