On 10/20/20 10:45 PM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
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/ .
Hello,
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:00:49 +0200
Thomas Wouters 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
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:41:02PM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> > a, *?, b = expression
> > print(?) # wait this doesn't work;
> >
>
> I'm not sure how this is different than, say,
>
> a, _, _ = range(3)
> print(_)
For starters, that will actually print something, not fail
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 14:26, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> I'm not sure how to put it differently than I have in the PEP or the email: I
> proposed they use ? instead of _ and also apply that to regular unpacking
> (because it is very easy to see pattern matching as an extension of unpacking
>
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:44 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:25, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:22 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:13, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> >> > The reason for this PEP is that pattern matching will make '_'
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:25, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:22 PM Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:13, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>> > The reason for this PEP is that pattern matching will make '_' (but not
>> > any other names) have the behaviour suggested in
On 20Oct2020 1309, Thomas Wouters wrote:
The reason for this PEP is that pattern matching will make '_' (but not
any other names) have the behaviour suggested in this PEP, but *only* in
pattern matching.
Then why is this PEP proposing a different syntax?
At the very least, wait for pattern
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:22 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:13, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> > The reason for this PEP is that pattern matching will make '_' (but not
> any other names) have the behaviour suggested in this PEP, but *only* in
> pattern matching.
>
> That's something
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:13, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> The reason for this PEP is that pattern matching will make '_' (but not any
> other names) have the behaviour suggested in this PEP, but *only* in pattern
> matching.
That's something that should be addressed or debated in the pattern
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:02 PM Chris Jerdonek
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 3:11 PM Thomas Wouters wrote:
>
>> PEP: 640
>> Title: Unused variable syntax
>> Author: Thomas Wouters
>>
> ...
>
>> In Python it is somewhat common to need to do an assignment without
>> actually
>> needing the
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 3:11 PM Thomas Wouters wrote:
> PEP: 640
> Title: Unused variable syntax
> Author: Thomas Wouters
>
...
> In Python it is somewhat common to need to do an assignment without
> actually
> needing the result. Conventionally, people use either ``"_"`` or a name
> such
> as
On 20Oct2020 1021, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
In my opinion, having a convention to treat certain variables as
"unused" is great (I'm partial to `__` myself, to avoid clobbering the
special variable `_` in the REPL). But having that be a pseudo-variable
which is *actually* unused and unuseable
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 11:26 AM Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I can't say that I like the look of pseudo-assignment to question mark:
>
> for ? in range(20):
> ...
>
> but I could probably learn to live with it. But one of your
> rationalisations:
>
>
> > and makes it more obvious that
>
I can't say that I like the look of pseudo-assignment to question mark:
for ? in range(20):
...
but I could probably learn to live with it. But one of your
rationalisations:
> and makes it more obvious that
> the actual intent is for the value to be unused -- since it is entirely
14 matches
Mail list logo
