Hello, On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:00:49 +0200 Thomas Wouters <tho...@python.org> wrote:
> One of the problems I have with the Pattern Matching proposal (PEP 622 > originally, now PEPs 634, 635, 636) is the special-casing of '_' to > not actually assign to the name, which is a subtle but meaningful > divergence from the rest of Python. In discussions with the authors I > proposed using '?' instead *and* extending that to existing unpacking One problem with this PEP, which I didn't see mentioned in the other replies, is that it tries to grab "?" character, which is already sought-for by another pending PEP: "PEP 505 -- None-aware operators", https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0505/ . Use of "?" in PEP640 can be disambiguated enough from PEP505's "??", "?.", "?[" from a compiler token perspective perspective, but what about confusion/clarity to humans: ?, ?, c = a d = b?.c ?, c = b ?? (None, 2) e = b?[i] (And PEP 505 would need to be addressed sooner or later, now that it's part of other mainstream languages. In Python's conceptual debt tower, non-aware operators definitely precede pattern matching). [] -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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/RWG25CCT22OYXVNGJ4EKXQE74GBLZUWY/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
