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. > 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 Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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/6PHXAGXL3Y6HTSH7JAPHVO2ABPAYJOWO/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
