That's a strawman argument. I am done arguing about this. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:47 PM Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat., 1 Aug. 2020, 10:55 am Guido van Rossum, <gu...@python.org> wrote: > >> Trust me, the PEP authors are well aware. If we hadn't been from the >> outset, a hundred different proposals to "deal" with this would have. And >> many of those proposals actually made it into the list of rejected ideas. >> Moreover, we rewrote a huge portion of the PEP from scratch as a result >> (everything from Abstract up to the entire Rationale and Goals section). >> >> Apart from your insistence that we "acknowledge" an "inconsistency", your >> counter-proposal is not so different from the others. >> > > Right, there are several ways the PEP could be adjusted so that assignment > target syntax and pattern matching syntax had consistent semantics whenever > they share syntax, just as other name binding syntaxes are already strict > subsets of the full assignment target syntax. I personally like "Use '?' as > an explicit constraint expression prefix", but it's far from being the only > possibility. > > But if we don't even agree that common syntax in a name binding context > should either always mean the same thing, or else be a syntax error, then > we're not going to agree that there's a problem to be solved in the first > place. > > Let's agree to disagree on the best syntax for patterns >> > > I think our disagreement is more fundamental than that, as I believe there > should be a common metasyntax for imperative name binding (i.e. everything > except function parameters) that all actual name binding contexts allow a > subset of, while the PEP authors feel it's OK to treat pattern matching as > a completely new design entity that only incidentally shares some common > syntax with assignment targets. > > Prior to PEP 622, the apparent design constraint that I had inferred was > implicitly met by the fact that all the imperative name binding operations > accept a subset of the full assignment target syntax, so it's never > actually come up before whether this is a real design goal for the > language, or just a quirk of history. > > PEP 622 is forcing that question to be answered explicitly, as accepting > it in its current form would mean telling me, and everyone else that had > inferred a similar design concept, that we need to adjust our thinking. > > I'd obviously prefer it if the PEP chose a different syntax that avoided > the semantic conflict with assignment for dotted names, but in the absence > of that, I'd settle for the explicit statement that we're wrong and > inferred a design principle that never actually existed. > > Cheers, > Nick. > > > > >> >> -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ 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/EBZN5FO4VW27OZ2YEA6V2AJFOOGEKNGQ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
