On 2020-07-02 15:48, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 5:50 PM Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
> The key thing I'm hoping for in PEP 622 itself is
> that "Syntactic compatibility with a possible future
> enhancement to assignment statements" be considered
> as a constraint on the syntax for case patterns.
That would certainly rule out ideas like writing stores as $x or x? or <x>
etc., since it would be syntactically incompatible with current
assignment statements.
No; it would be unfortunate that it creates a second way to
do things, but it wouldn't rule them out. The problem Nick
pointed out is for syntax that is already meaningful, but
means something different.
self.y = 15
already has a meaning, but that meaning is NOT "don't really
assign to X, I am using it as a constant defined elsewhere."
?x = 14
?self.y = 15
do not yet mean anything, and if they end up being a more
explicit (but also more verbose) variant of
x = 14
self.y = 15
that is probably sub-optimal, but it isn't any worse than :=
The slight variation triggered by the "?" of ?var would be
shorthand for "and if you can't make the entire assignment
work, pretend I never even asked", so that
?x, 0 = (4,5)
would not lose or shadow a previous binding of x.
IMHO, the assignment statement should remain as it is, not sometimes
assign and sometimes not.
There could be another form that does matching:
try ?x, 0 = (4,5)
or:
?x, 0 ?= (4,5)
Perhaps it could also be used as an expression, having the value True if
it matches and False if it doesn't.
_______________________________________________
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/MQV7WBASYRI7PJT5M2VUCPHKBZLXDMY2/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
