On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:15 PM Ethan Furman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I too thought "why not else:?" at first. But "case _:" covers it in > > the one obvious way after grasping how general wildcard matches are. > > "case _:" is easy to miss -- I missed it several times reading through the > PEP. > > > Introducing "else:" too would be adding a wart (redundancy) just to > > stop shallow-first-impression whining. > > Huh. I would consider "case _:" to be the wart, especially since "case > default:" or "case anything:" or "case i_dont_care:" all do basically the > same thing (although they bind to the given name, while _ does not bind to > anything, but of what practical importance is that?) . > There's always making everyone equally annoyed, and allowing 'case else:' (not a very serious suggestion, though it does have a certain sort of symmetry).
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/5FEGF436IVEMMDPGMPTPDWEW2VDFTU7A/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
