On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:25, Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:22 PM Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 13:13, Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org> 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.
Understood. But unless I'm missing something, the pattern matching PEP(s) is/are in limbo at the moment, there's a lot going on in github but nothing has been posted here. So I'm not clear what there is to discuss here at the moment, if the proposal is only relevant if pattern matching includes it, but no published pattern matching PEP has suggested it... (Sorry if the above sounds a little disgruntled, it feels like there's a lot going in "in private" with the pattern matching PEP and I sort of feel like a bit more transparency would be good. Maybe I'm mistaken...) Paul