Brandt Bucher <[email protected]> added the comment:
Nice find! In my opinion, we should do two things here:
- Update PEP 638 to specify that a SyntaxError is raised "if *any duplicate*
key patterns are literal patterns". This was absolutely our original
intention... I think the nuances were just lost in the final phrasing. I can
take care of that PR.
- Update the compiler to raise SyntaxErrors for duplicate literal keys. It
should be as simple as updating the first loop in compiler_pattern_mapping to
build a set containing the values of any literal keys and raise on duplicates
(and adding/updating tests, of course). We'll want to make sure we have test
coverage of edge cases like {0: _, False: _}, {0: _, 0.0: _}, {0: _, -0: _},
{0: _, 0j: _}, etc.
Since you found this, you get first dibs on a PR. Otherwise, I have a few
first-time contributors who would probably be interested.
----------
nosy: +gvanrossum
type: -> behavior
versions: +Python 3.11 -Python 3.10
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue44589>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
