On 2/8/21 3:02 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, 8:18 am Terry Reedy wrote:
>> The one thing I think needs to be discussed and not been much, at least
>> not publicly that I have seen, is whether we really want to go down the
>> road of contextual keywords. There are some negatives as well as
>> positives. Just because the new parser makes them possible does not
>> mean we should. Do we really want to see 'match match:' or 'case
>> match...', etc?
>
> As a hard keyword, the existence of "re.match()" would have almost certainly
> resulted in immediate rejection of the PEP.
>
>> Where possible, should we retroactively make existing
>> keywords contextual?
>
> The benefit of contextual keywords is being able to choose popular
method/function/variable names as new keywords
> without a disruptive deprecation and migration process. That benefit doesn't
apply to existing keywords.
No, but it would have the benefit of allowing existing keywords to be reused where it makes sense; a recent example I
came across is the Tcl/Tk interface -- Tk has a method named `raise`, but it has to be renamed to tkraise because of the
keyword clash (it's also given a `lift` alias).
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/KFFLRVYOLQE2UBFJGK7KGVJJTERAN2QI/
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
