On 27/06/2020 10:36, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Richard Damon writes:
> As long as the bindings in match also make the symbol a local
> (which seems reasonable) then you would get a similar restriction.
It's quite different. First, it surely won't make other symbols
match-local. Of course there will be times when you do all the work
inside the match statement. But often you'll want to do bindings in a
match statement, then use those outside. The second problem is that
this use of '_' isn't optional. It's part of the syntax. That means
that you can't use the traditional marking of a translateable string
(and it's not just tradition; there is a lot of external software that
expects it) in that scope.
So it's practically important, if not theoretically necessary, that
'case _' not bind '_'.
That's the clearest explanation of why "_" needs to be treated
carefully, but I don't think it argues for the PEP's special treatment.
Those people like me who just write for ourselves and don't care about
internationalisation use "_" like any other variable with a strong
implication that it's a dummy, so don't really care. Those people like
you who care about internationalisation presumably avoid using "_"
anyway, so the PEP's usage goes against your current instincts.
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
_______________________________________________
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/RXUG2UJCSINOMBHSWWIPIUAGLVRTEMNH/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
