Hello, On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 00:35:39 +0200 Federico Salerno <salerno...@gmail.com> wrote:
[] > A few emails ago I proposed something like this (and I'm probably > only the last one to do so amongst many), but if anyone made an > argument against it I must have missed it: The PEP itself in "rejected" ideas makes an argument against it: indented stuff after a line ending with ":" must be a *statement*. It would be totally nuts for that to be something else, e.g. an expression: > > match: > a > case 1: > ... > case 2: > ... > else: > ... > (The a on a separate line being arguable.) That of course leads us to the obvious idea: match a: case 1: ... case 2: ... else: ... Of course, PEP smartly has an argument against that too, in the vein of "after line ending with ':', there should be an indent suite (list of statements)". But that's where it goes sideways. That argument is no better than the argument "there should be no normally looking identifiers with magic behavior", but look, very this PEP does exactly that with the identifier "_". And if the above snippet looks weird to anybody, it's only because of all the "case" business. There wouldn't be such a problem if it was instead: match a: | 1: ... | 2: ... |: ... The above ML-like syntax should be perfect for almost everyone, ... except the PEP authors, because they have it in "rejected ideas" either. -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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/7V7BS3ICKE5PJZD5Q2I65ALZQNXROPZU/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
