On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 5:50 PM Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The key thing I'm hoping for in PEP 622 itself is that "Syntactic > compatibility with a possible future enhancement to assignment > statements" be considered as a constraint on the syntax for case > patterns. > That would certainly rule out ideas like writing stores as $x or x? or <x> etc., since it would be syntactically incompatible with *current* assignment statements. > Some of the ideas currently on the table would rule that out, since > they re-use syntax that is already legal in assignment statements to > mean something else (most notably, "x.y = z" means something entirely > different from the initially proposed meaning of "case x.y:"). If PEP > 622 were to be accepted in that form, then it would foreclose the > possibility of ever allowing destructuring assignment statements. > I'm not worried. Even if these didn't *exactly* the same syntax users would still benefit from similarities, e.g. `a, b, *rest = value` vs. `case a, b, *rest:`. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ 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/PXGCSATPVP23URNKWYXDUBRUBKPNBPDZ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
