A notorious example here of the "not many" is this proposal (i.e. not part of the language yet) for C++: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1371r0.pdf . I think it's an interesting example given that this is a very mature language, not originally designed with pattern matching in mind, where _ is normally an identifier.

Best, D.

On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 19:30, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:03 AM Tobias Kohn <kohnt@tobiaskohn.ch> wrote:

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your interest and the questions.

1. This really comes down to how you look at it, or how you define pattern matching. The issue here is that the concept of pattern matching has grown into a large and somewhat diverse flock of interpretations and implementations (as a side note: interestingly enough, some of the only universally agreed-upon standards are to use `_` as a wildcard and not to mark names that capture/bind values---which are quite exactly the points most fiercely debatted here).
How many of those languages added pattern matching later and not at the earliest stages of the language (if not from the beginning)? And for those that added it later, how many of those didn't already have a convention surrounding "_"? My suspicion is "not many" and "not many". 😉

-Brett
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/VZHF7GJ637YULIU53MCCH26T4LWJ2YP6/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/