On 7/7/20 10:08 PM, Rob Cliffe via Python-Dev wrote: > Why not use '=' to distinguish binding from equality testing: > case Point(x, =y): # matches a Point() with 2nd parameter equal to > y; if it does, binds to x. > > This would allow a future (or present!) extension to other relative > operators: > case Point(x, >y): > (although the syntax doesn't AFAICS naturally extend to specifying a > range, i.e. an upper and lower bound, which might be a desirable thing > to do. > Perhaps someone can think of a way of doing it). > > Whether > case =42: > case 42: > would both be allowed would be one issue to be decided. > Rob Cliffe My preference would be that we mark where to bind as opposed to what is a constant. Forgetting to mark a constant that has been bound to a name runs the risk of changing that 'constant' (since Python doesn't support marking a name as a constant). Forgetting to mark a name to bind may likely cause a run time error if it hasn't been bound yet, or at the very least probably fails in a 'safer' way. I think forgetting to add a special mark is a much more likely error than adding a mark by mistake (unless the mark is just havig a dot in the name).
-- Richard Damon _______________________________________________ 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/NMFVBR433E6UEGEEJAS6I6NNXPK7W4OM/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
