On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 04:56, Carol Willing
That's a fair point. We expect to do a hand-off meeting with the new SC to discuss. Although personally I would like to see a pattern matching solution, we didn't have consensus within the existing SC for many of the reasons already discussed in other posts. We felt it was best to give the new SC an opportunity to make the decision.
Given that the current SC had also previously announced your intent to let the next SC decide, changing your mind and accepting it now would have been problematic :) I'll change my priorities on getting PEP 642 revised and formally submitted to the new SC for consideration though - the review process on that PEP has shifted me from being +0 on PEP 634 to -1 due to the way name binding works in class and mapping patterns (especially class patterns, where "x=y" looks up "x" as an instance attribute and binds "y" as a local variable). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia