Daniel Moisset wrote:
> I might expect that in a "case D(something=__y)" you get the mangling for
> __y, but I'm not sure what the implementation does now and I'm writing from
> my phone
Yes - that case does what you'd expect.
Thanks for the reply.
___
I don't remember this topic ever being discussed, but still I wouldn't
expect that __something to be mangled, given that it refers to an attribute
of an instance of D.
I might expect that in a "case D(something=__y)" you get the mangling for
__y, but I'm not sure what the implementation does now a
For this code:
class C:
def f(self, x):
match x:
case D(__something=y):
return y
It appears that the name "__something" isn't mangled. Under most other
circumstances I'd expect this to be mangled to "_C__something". Is this:
* intentional,
* accidental, but how that it's done
Hi everyone,
Today we are supposed to release Python3.11.0b4 but unfortunately, we have
a bunch of release blockers:
https://github.com/python/cpython/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Arelease-blocker+label%3A3.11+
Please, if you are involved in the above issues check if they are resolved
or
-cc:help (bcc)
FWIW the thing to do to move this forward is to open a new PR. Patches
attached to an email are lost like tears in the rain.
What you describe of cross compilation where host and target triples appear
the same but use different libraries is a valid cross compilation case. But
doesn
Hi,
While this problem is causing you a lot of troubles, I never had to
cross compile Python, and I guess that it's the case for most people.
Changing the Python build system and distutils is stressful since it
can break Python for the majority of users, rather than leaving the
minority of users w
