On 2020-06-26 16:54, Stéfane Fermigier wrote:
[...]
Here's one example:
https://github.com/clojure/core.match (in particular:
https://github.com/clojure/core.match/wiki/Understanding-the-algorithm ).
Alson some insights from
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/237023/pattern-matching-in-clojure-vs-scala
In this video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGVqrGmwOAw> I
watched recently, Rich Hickey comments that he likes the
destructuring part of languages like Scala, but not so much the
pattern matching part, and he designed Clojure accordingly. That
probably explains why the pattern matching is in a library and not
as robust, although the kind of problems seen in the post you
mentioned are clearly bugs.
What Rich Hickey mentions as an alternative to pattern matching is
multimethods <http://clojure.org/multimethods>. Most languages let
you do polymorphic dispatch based on type. Some languages let you
also do it based on a value. Using multimethods, Clojure lets you do
it based on any arbitrary function. That's a pretty powerful concept.
It comes down to the principle that programmers using a language
should use the language's own best idioms. Trying to write
Scala-like code in Clojure is going to have its difficulties, and
vice versa.
It does look like the PEP tries to do two different things: "switch"
instead of if/elif, and destructuring.
Would it be useful to introduce an operator for "isinstance", if it's so
commonly used? Are the calls to it (in the relevant codebase) actually
used in complex code that needs destructuring, or could we live with
this (IS_A being a placeholder for bikeshedding, of course):
if shape IS_A Point:
x, y = shape
...
elif shape IS_A Rectangle:
x, y, w, h = shape
...
elif shape IS_A Line:
x, y = line.start
if line.start == line.end:
print(f"Zero length line at {x}, {y}")
or:
queue: Union[Queue[int], Queue[str]]
if queue IS_A IntQueue:
# Type-checker detects unreachable code
...
There aren't many convincing examples for destructuring in the PEP, IMO.
The "mapping pattern" one could be rewritten as:
if route := config.get('route'):
process_route(route)
if subconfig := config.pop(constants.DEFAULT_PORT):
process_config(sub_config, config)
Sequence destructuring examples ([_] for "short sequence") don't seem
too useful. Would they actually improve lots of existing code?
Complex object /tree destructuring (like the is_tuple) is painful in
Python, but then again, the new syntax also becomes quite inscrutable
for complex cases.
Is code like the is_tuple example in the Rationale actually common?
The "Sealed classes as algebraic data types" example looks like a good
candidate for a dump() method or PEP 443 single dispatch, both of which
should be amenable to static analysis.
_______________________________________________
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/57RTPCDQX56WZKQC42KXYS2EHQWLALCN/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
