On 7/11/20 4:03 am, Thomas Wouters wrote:
It's also why I'm not in favour of PEP 642 and other proposals for solving some of the problems in the Structural Pattern Matching proposal (sigils, etc): it widens the gap instead of closing it.
Does that mean you're against *any* proposal that involves sigils, or just PEP 642 in particular? Also, I'm very confused about why you're against PEP 642. It seems to do a good job of meeting your stated goals -- syntax in common between unpacking and matching has the same meaning, and the way is left open for making them more like each other in the future. Can you elaborate on what you don't like about it? -- Greg _______________________________________________ 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/2X3IME7SD6HOA6D5HRHWR3VSSDKEOGUZ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
