On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 5:31 AM Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: > > It's right here that you lose me. Anyone who reduces pattern matching to "a > > fancy switch statement" probably isn't the right person to be discussing > > its semantics and usefulness with. It seems that some people just can't > > separate the two ideas in their mind. It's like calling a class a "fancy > > module". > > Pattern matching is a fancy switch statement, if you define "fancy" > appropriately ;) > > Reducing pattern matching to some sort of switch statement is exactly > what a good implementation should do. It's what compilers are for. > The comparison seems entirely reasonable to me.
"What compilers are for" is turning useful high level constructs into low level executable forms. I don't think anyone would say that a for loop is just a fancy GOTO, even though it gets compiled into one. I don't care how the compiler represents something; I care how I'll be using it. A regular expression isn't, to me, a state machine - it's a way to describe a text pattern. > > It's okay that you feel that way, but hopefully you'll understand if people > > start to tune out messages that contain these sorts of comments. > > > > What does "these sorts of comments" mean? > Ones that you disagree with? > > If I am wrong, please explain why in an as objective a fashion as possible. Considering how subjective your posts in this thread are, there's some irony in begging for the complaint to be objective. > >> I would ask anyone who wants pattern matching adding to Python, to not > >> support PEP 634. > > > > Seriously? > > Yes. Absolutely. > PEP 634 is seriously flawed. FUD. You haven't given a single reason for it to be considered flawed, you've just said that it 'is' flawed, as though we should already know what's wrong with it. I don't draw this parallel lightly, but Mark, you're actually sounding scarily similar to jmf and his anti-PEP393 posts. Extremely light on actual arguments, and entirely based on emotive complaints and an assumption that your readers already know why this is somehow a bad thing. If you want PEP 634 to be rejected, explain why. Don't try to get us to go back over the past thousands of posts (never mind the ones stretching back ten years even). ChrisA _______________________________________________ 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/M6IH6ZC42YYEJFUJ356FIQX44OAGWGCQ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
