Hello,
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 14:10:59 +0100
Dave Halter wrote:
> I'm late, but I still wanted to add that I share some of the criticism
> that Mark has brought up.
>
> I'm in love with Rust's pattern matching, so I feel like I'm not
> against pattern matching generally. However I feel like while
I'm late, but I still wanted to add that I share some of the criticism
that Mark has brought up.
I'm in love with Rust's pattern matching, so I feel like I'm not
against pattern matching generally. However I feel like while the PEP
is well written, there are some things that it does not tackle:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 at 00:44, Mark Shannon wrote:
> Should match be an expression, or a statement?
> --
>
> Do we want a fancy switch statement, or a powerful expression?
> Expressions have the advantage of not leaking (like comprehensions in
> Python
On 31/10/20 7:22 am, Mark Shannon wrote:
On 30/10/2020 4:09 pm, Brandt Bucher wrote:
Anyone who reduces pattern matching
to "a fancy switch statement" probably isn't the right person to be
discussing its semantics and usefulness with.
Pattern matching is a fancy switch statement, if you
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 5:31 AM Mark Shannon 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
> >
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 18:30, Mark Shannon wrote:
>
> Hi Brandt,
>
> On 30/10/2020 4:09 pm, Brandt Bucher wrote:
> >> Can we discuss whether we want pattern matching in Python and the broader
> >> semantics first, before dealing with low level details?
> >
> > This is a huge step backward. These
Hi Brandt,
On 30/10/2020 4:09 pm, Brandt Bucher wrote:
Can we discuss whether we want pattern matching in Python and the broader
semantics first, before dealing with low level details?
This is a huge step backward. These discussions have already taken place, over
the last 10 years.
So
> Can we discuss whether we want pattern matching in Python and the broader
> semantics first, before dealing with low level details?
This is a huge step backward. These discussions have already taken place, over
the last 10 years.
Here's just a sampling:
-
