On Wed., 11 Nov. 2020, 8:10 am Brett Cannon, wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:40 PM Tobias Kohn wrote:
>
>> One of the simplest patterns is without doubt the literal pattern that
>> essential only matches itself (e.g., ``case 123:`` or ``case
>> 'abc':``). Any future unification of patter
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:40 PM Tobias Kohn wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Thank you very much for your carefully worded and thoughtful email. I
> feel, however, that many of your concerns are based on an idealised
> picture of a future Python language that will never actually
> materialise.
>
> As I u
Hi Thomas,
Thank you very much for your carefully worded and thoughtful email. I
feel, however, that many of your concerns are based on an idealised
picture of a future Python language that will never actually
materialise.
As I understand it your main point is that the concept of pattern
On Sat., 7 Nov. 2020, 9:56 am Greg Ewing,
wrote:
> On 7/11/20 4:03 am, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>
> > It's also why I'm not in favour of PEP 642 and other proposals for
> > solving some of the problems in the Structural Pattern Matching proposal
> > (sigils, etc): it widens the gap instead of closin
On 7/11/20 4:03 am, Thomas Wouters wrote:
It's also why I'm not in favour of PEP 642 and other proposals for
solving some of the problems in the Structural Pattern Matching proposal
(sigils, etc): it widens the gap instead of closing it.
Does that mean you're against *any* proposal that invol
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:05 AM Thomas Wouters wrote:
>
> The primary reason I care about the integration with the rest of Python is
> because it limits the future expansion of the language.
>
I did not think as deeply as you have done on this subject here.
My exposure to pattern matching was in
