A cursory search of this thread suggests that no one has mentioned this yet, but apologies if I missed one of the existing replies about this.
In regards to https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0622/#alternatives-for-constant-value-pattern, was this alternative considered? ``` match obj: case SomeClass(field := _): # is this already allowed by the PEP? pass case some_constant: # my proposal: do not require `.some_constant` here pass case (other := _): # is this already allowed by the PEP? If so, do we need the extra `case other:` spelling? print(other) ``` It seems like `:=` already provides all the necessary syntax for distinguishing bindings from constants, admittedly at the cost of 6 characters per binding (eg `Point(x := _, y := _)`) - so introducing additional syntax seems unnecessary. If this was considered but rejected for verbosity concerns, it would be nice to see it mentioned in the rejected alternatives section. Eric _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/3XW5JB2YZ7SUKU6SXXAMWBGIBOBD62O5/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
