On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 12:16:09 +0000 Paul Moore email@example.com wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 at 11:25, Steven D'Aprano firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Thank you for the well-written PEP, although I don't agree with it. My response below is quite long. Here is my opinionated TL;DR:
For what it's worth, I find your rebuttal of PEP 642 convincing, and in line with my thoughts on the matter.
-1 from me on PEP 642.
Given that this was a direct reply to Steven's mail, and he explicitly said:
(4) Using sigils to over-ride the default is okay. That includes turning what would otherwise be a capture pattern into a comparison.
And that's also the stated goal of PEP 642, quoting:
This PEP takes the view that not requiring a marker prefix on value lookups in match patterns results in a cure that is worse than the disease: Python's first ever syntax-sensitive value lookup where you can't transparently replace an attribute lookup with a local variable lookup
So, both PEP 642 and Steven agree that the problem exists, and explicit marker is a suitable means to address it.
Then, deriving "rebuttal" and "-1" to PEP 642 from Steven's mail sounds a bit confusing.