Hi Koos,
Yes, our three PEPs (634/635/636) are up to date. PEP 634 is the
technical specification, so you probably want to start with the
tutorial (PEP 636) or the rationale (PEP 635).
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0636/
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0635/
Perhaps the followi
I've had some things going on, and I'm still trying to catch up with the
discussions here. Can someone tell me what would be the best place to look
at the most recent proposal? Is one of the PEPs up to date?
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 7:02 PM Tobias Kohn wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thank you for your int
I suppose that does follow from treating _ specially by not binding to it at
all; I just hadn't thought through it. (I think my mental model had it wiping
out the previous binding even if the "new" one wasn't available.) So I would
prefer that this be stated explicitly in the PEP. (And maybe
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:39 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
> Now obviously "practicality beats purity" as well, but the argument "other
> languages do it this way" doesn't hold well for a language that doesn't use
> curly braces for scoping delineation. 😉
>
I see your smiley, and I believe I've addres
Hi Brett,
Thanks for your replies.
_> But you can write `123 .bit_length()`. 😊 That's a parser limitation
more than human understanding._
Touché. I took this ambiguity of the dot so much for granted that I
would not have thought of trying that.
_> Yep, but PEP 634 not only changes the
But none of those limitations are there under our proposal. You can write
this if you want:
match = 1
match match:
case case: print(case, match)
And you can use _(“...”) anywhere in the case block and even in the guard.
Just not as a pattern, but you can’t use f(1) there either...
On Fri,
Not being able to use a particular variable name (such as match or case) in the
limited context of matching is only a minor wart. Unfortunately, _ for
internationalization is already a well-established convention for something
that you might well want to do within each separate case. It isn't
A notorious example here of the "not many" is this proposal (i.e. not part
of the language yet) for C++:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1371r0.pdf . I
think it's an interesting example given that this is a very mature
language, not originally designed with pattern matching
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:39 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
> My question about adding pattern matching later was more to comment on the
> fact that the languages that use "_" for a wildcard pattern did it from
> early on, not later on; it had nothing to do with the proposal proposing
> pattern matching
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 1:16 PM Tobias Kohn wrote:
> Hi Brett,
>
> Without having really looked at the history of all the languages we
> mention in the PEPs, I have a hunch that most of them had pattern matching
> from quite the beginning or an early stage on, indeed. That being said, I
> think
Hi Brett,
Without having really looked at the history of all the languages we
mention in the PEPs, I have a hunch that most of them had pattern
matching from quite the beginning or an early stage on, indeed. That
being said, I think the question itself does not really make much
sense, t
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:03 AM Tobias Kohn wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thank you for your interest and the questions.
>
>
> 1. This really comes down to how you look at it, or how you define
> pattern matching. The issue here is that the concept of pattern matching
> has grown into a large and somew
On 11/16/2020 11:57 AM, Tobias Kohn wrote:
1. This really comes down to how you look at it, or how you define
pattern matching. The issue here is that the concept of pattern
matching has grown into a large and somewhat diverse flock of
interpretations and implementations (as a side note: int
On 11/16/2020 6:14 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
2. Is the error in the ast matching example, an intentional
"simplification" or just an oversight?
The example:
```
def simplify(node):
match node:
case BinOp(Num(left), '+', Num(right)):
return Num(left + right)
c
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your interest and the questions.
1. This really comes down to how you look at it, or how you define
pattern matching. The issue here is that the concept of pattern
matching has grown into a large and somewhat diverse flock of
interpretations and implementations (a
15 matches
Mail list logo
