On 2020-06-24 13:37, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 21:54:24 +1200
Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
On 24/06/20 5:20 am, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> suddently `Point(x, 0)` means something entirely
> different (it doesn't call Point.__new__, it doesn't lookup `x` in the
> locals or globals...).
This is one reason I would rather see something explicitly marking
names to be bound, rather than making the binding case the default.
E.g.
case Point(?x, 0):
This would also eliminate the need for the awkward leading-dot
workaround for names to be looked up rather than bound.
That looks quite a bit better indeed, because it strongly suggests
that something unusual is happening from the language's POV. Thank you
for suggesting this.
Could the name be omitted when you're not interested in the value?
case Point(?, 0):
One other thing that the PEP doesn't make clear -- is it possible
to combine '=' and ':=' to match a keyword argument with a sub
pattern and capture the result? I.e. can you write
case Spam(foo = foo_value := Blarg()):
Yuck :-S
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@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/TQYW7GRPXWNHM7NWDKVQZCDZZBFZYVHN/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
