Terry Reedy wrote:
> A major points of Kohn's post is that 'case' is analogous to 'def' and
> match lists are analogous to parameter lists. In parameter lists,
I'm sorry to disagree, but match lists share very few things in common with
today's parameters list, and introduce a full new concept of "matching" vs
"binding/capturing" that doesn't exists with the function definition.
> untagged simple names ('parameter names') are binding targets.
> Therefore, untagged simple names in match lists, let us call them 'match
> names' should be also. I elaborated on this in my response to Tobias.
This approach, for me, seems to come from functionnal languages where pattern
matching is a thing. The proposed "match" clause tends to mimic this approach,
and it can be a good thing. But the Python's function definition has not been
inspired by functionnal programming from the ground, and I think it would be an
error to reason this way, because people not used to pattern matching in
functionnal programming won't understand anything (imagine that comprehension
lists are a big thing for many learners). That's why I think reasonning in such
a theorical point of view will leads many python developpers to a dead end.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/AENMRD23UGV6D5KI25RSQSCJ3YGCGBUY/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
