On 6/25/2020 3:55 AM, Kyle Stanley wrote: > 2) Regarding the constant value pattern semantics, I'm okay with the > usage of the "." in general, but I completely agree with several > others that it's rather difficult to read when there's a leading > period with a single word, e.g. ".CONSTANT". To some degree, this > could probably be less problematic with some reasonably good syntax > highlighting to draw attention to the leading period. > > However, I don't think it should be at all necessary for people to > rely on syntax highlighting to be able to clearly see something that's > part of a core Python language feature. It seems especially > detrimental for those with visual impairment. As someone with > relatively poor eye-sight who typically has to blow up the font size > for my code to be readable (and often finds syntax highlighting to be > distracting), I'm not really looking forward to squinting for missed > leading periods when it was intended to refer to a constant reference. > Even if it's a relatively uncommon case, with a core feature, it's > bound to happen enough to cause some headaches.
A missing . is exactly the type of mistake I tend to make. It is also the type of mistake that I could stare at endlessly and not notice. Surely there could be a much more obvious way of doing things. Other than this . issue, the PEP is great! I look forward to using match. --Edwin Zimmerman _______________________________________________ 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/7GGUPIFGKDELBSWPBSUNOZ2CU54KWF2O/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
