On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 09:30, Federico Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13/07/2020 00:20, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > The need for a wildcard pattern has already been explained -- we really > want to disallow `Point(x, y, y)` but we really need to allow `Point(z, _, > _)`. Generating code to assign the value to `_` seems odd given the clear > intent to *ignore* the value. > > Would it be impossible for the parser to interpret Point(x, y, y) as "the > second and third arguments of Point must have the same value in order to > match. Bind that value to y"? Since the value has to be the same, it > doesn't matter whether y binds to the first or the second (or the nth) > instance of it. > No, that would not be impossible but fraught with problems. This is discussed in the PEP: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0622/#algebraic-matching-of-repeated-names
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/RQYFJ2TY3FLYLD233AH7VSQDOJRE7UQS/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
