Abdulla Al Kathiri writes:
You have a point, but the mathematical approach of Haskell of different function cases is quite readable and straight forward.
You seem to have quite missed that point, though. The point is that although borrowing tech from Haskell for Python is a *great* idea (almost as yuge as "namespaces" ;-), Python is not Haskell, and will do those things its own way.
In this case we already have a perfectly good syntax for this, it's just that it occurs in the explicit match statement rather than implicitly when a function is defined multiple times.
The fact that the Haskell style is often less verbose is likely to carry zero weight. The fact that it means two ways of doing the same thing (one being more general and flexible), is a potential detriment, although not always an idea killer.
Also, arguing that "other languages do this and it's fine for them" doesn't help here for syntax -- it frequently does carry weight for the feature itself (Haskell was mentioned more than once in advocating some kind of match statement or expression). You need to argue either that "this is a common (enough) thing to do and it's so verbose that this much more concise way of expressing it is much more readable" or that "this is something that Python can't currently do without [some horrible hack], and it can't really be expressed in a function, but this syntax looks very natural in a Python program and does the job".
Nobody will hate on you for disagreeing with all that, but you'll be more able to get things done if you present syntax proposals in those ways.
Steve