On 07/11/2020 10:29 AM, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
> To me, "else:" has a slightly different meaning than "case _:"
>
> case _: essentially a default, ensuring that the match logic is complete.
>
> else: OK, the subject of this match failed, here is our fallback logic.
>
> Whether this distinction is important enough to express in code is another question, as is whether or not anyone but me would follow this "obvious" convention. So I'm not convinced the difference justifies the existence a second syntax. But I'm also not sure it doesn't, particularly if that distinction were given in the PEP and in documentation for the match statement.
This is exactly how I would use it.
Hm... Just the fact that people have been arguing both sides so convincingly makes me worry that something bigger is amiss. I think we're either better off without `else` (since the indentation of `case _` cannot be disputed :-), or we have to revisit the reasons for indenting `case` relative to `match`. As MRAB said, it's a case of picking the least inelegant one.
Let me add that the parser can easily deal with whatever we pick -- this is purely about human factors.