On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 16:05, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> Today I’m happy (and a little trepidatious) to announce the next
> version of PEP 622, Pattern Matching. As authors we welcome Daniel F
> Moisset in our midst. Daniel wrote a lot of the new text in this
> version, which introduces the subject matter much more gently than the
> first version did. He also convinced us to drop the `__match__`
> protocol for now: the proposal stands quite well without that kind of
> extensibility, and postponing it will allow us to design it at a later
> time when we have more experience with how `match` is being used.
>
> That said, the new version does not differ dramatically in what we
> propose. Apart from dropping `__match__` we’re dropping the leading
> dot to mark named constants, without a replacement, and everything
> else looks like we’re digging in our heels. Why is that? Given the
> firestorm of feedback we received and the numerous proposals (still
> coming) for alternative syntax, it seems a bad tactic not to give up
> something more substantial in order to get this proposal passed. Let
> me explain.
>
> Language design is not like politics. It’s not like mathematics
> either, but I don’t think this situation is at all similar to
> negotiating a higher minimum wage in exchange for a lower pension,
> where you can definitely argue about exactly how much lower/higher
> you’re willing to go. So I don’t think it’s right to propose making
> the feature a little bit uglier just to get it accepted.
>
> Frankly, 90% of the issue is about what among the authors we’ve dubbed
> the “load/store” problem (although Tobias never tires to explain that
> the “load” part is really “load-and-compare”). There’s a considerable
> section devoted to this topic in the PEP, but I’d like to give it
> another try here.
>
> In case you’ve been avoiding python-dev lately, the problem is
> this. Pattern matching lets you capture values from the subject,
> similar to sequence unpacking, so that you can write for example
> ```
> x = range(4)
> match x:
> case (a, b, *rest):
> print(f"first={a}, second={b}, rest={rest}") # 0, 1, [2, 3]
> ```
> Here the `case` line captures the contents of the subject `x` in three
> variables named `a`, `b` and `rest`. This is easy to understand by
> pretending that a pattern (i.e., what follows `case`) is like the LHS
> of an assignment.
>
> However, in order to make pattern matching more useful and versatile,
> the pattern matching syntax also allows using literals instead of
> capture variables. This is really handy when you want to distinguish
> different cases based on some value, for example
> ```
> match t:
> case ("rect", real, imag):
> return complex(real, imag)
> case ("polar", r, phi):
> return complex(r * cos(phi), r * sin(phi))
> ```
> You might not even notice anything funny here if I didn’t point out
> that `"rect"` and `"polar"` are literals -- it’s really quite
> natural for patterns to support this once you think about it.
>
> The problem that everybody’s been concerned about is that Python
> programmers, like C programmers before them, aren’t too keen to have
> literals like this all over their code, and would rather give names to
> the literals, for example
> ```
> USE_POLAR = "polar"
> USE_RECT = "rect"
> ```
> Now we would like to be able to replace those literals with the
> corresponding names throughout our code and have everything work like
> before:
> ```
> match t:
> case (USE_RECT, real, imag):
> return complex(real, imag)
> case (USE_POLAR, r, phi):
> return complex(r * cos(phi), r * sin(phi))
> ```
>
Forgive the intrusion, in case this wasn't already mentioned (I only read a
fraction of emails on this), we could say that name enclosed in parenthesis
would mean loading a constant, instead of storing in a variable:
match t:
case ((USE_RECT), real, imag): # matches the constant USE_RECT
literal value
return complex(real, imag)
case (USE_POLAR, r, phi): # the USE_POLAR portion matches anything
and stores in a USE_POLAR variable
return complex(r * cos(phi), r * sin(phi))
Advantages: in Python (and most programming languages), (x) is the same
thing as x. So, no new syntax, or weird symbols, need to be introduced.
But the parser can distinguish (I hope), and guide the match statement
generation to the appropriate behaviour.
Yes, it's more typing, but hopefully the case is uncommon enough that the
extra typing is not a lot of burden.
Yes, it's easy to type USE_RECT when you really meant (USE_RECT).
Hopefully linters can catch this case and warn you.
OK, that's it, I just thought it was worth throwing yet another idea into
the pot :-)
--
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
Gambit Research
"The universe is always one step beyond logic." -- Frank Herbert
_______________________________________________
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/YLQURRHO6OYDUAORHZD4MHITV6F75NWY/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
