Emily Bowman wrote:
> SPAM: Final = "spam"
> then it'll throw an error. Likewise, the first time it does something
> totally unexpected like insert something into what they thought held a
> match pattern, it'll break their initial assumptions and hopefully get them
> to read the documentation, to
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
> In any case, functional languages like Haskell, F# and ML are not the
> only languages with pattern matching. Non-FP languages like C#, Swift,
> Rust and Scala have it, and even Java has an extension providing pattern
> matching:
> http://tom.loria.fr/wiki/index.ph
Ethan Furman wrote:
> The problem with any kind of sigil/keyword is that it becomes line noise
> -- we would have to train ourselves to ignore them in order to see the
> structure and variables we are actually interested in. Once we become
Every syntax element can become noise once we're used
Terry Reedy wrote:
> A major points of Kohn's post is that 'case' is analogous to 'def' and
> match lists are analogous to parameter lists. In parameter lists,
I'm sorry to disagree, but match lists share very few things in common with
today's parameters list, and introduce a full new concept
Hello everyone,
I'm sorry if my proposition has already being said, or even withdrawn,
but I think that capture variables shouldn't be as implicit as they
are now. I didn't see any mention of capture variable patterns in
the rejected ideas. So here is my idea:
I've looked at the PEP very quickly,
