On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:22 PM Paul Moore firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:13, Thomas Wouters email@example.com wrote:
The reason for this PEP is that pattern matching will make '_' (but not
any other names) have the behaviour suggested in this PEP, but *only* in pattern matching.
That's something that should be addressed or debated in the pattern matching PEP. I'm -1 on this PEP being *solely* to patch over a wart in the pattern matching PEP, and the other justifications for the PEP as a standalone proposal don't seem to be convincing people (they don't convince me either, FWIW).
I did say, in the original email:
This proposal doesn't necessarily require pattern matching to be accepted -- the new syntax stands well enough on its own -- but I'm recommending this *not* be accepted if pattern matching using the same syntax is not also accepted. The benefit without pattern matching is real but small, and in my opinion it's not worth the added complexity.