czw., 12 lis 2020 o 19:41 Paul Sokolovsky <pmis...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:55:10 -0800
> Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
>
> > The position of PEP 622/634/535/636 authors is clear: we see this as a
> > necessary feature to support using enums (e.g. Color.RED) or constants
> > defined in other modules (e.g. re.I) when simple switch functionality
> > is being migrated from literals (e.g. case 404) to named constants
> > (e.g. case HTTPStatus.NOT_FOUND). Bothering users with the
> > technicality of needing to use '==' here is a big usability hit.
>
> As was pointed out many times on the mailing list, there's a very
> obvious way around needing to use '==' there. It's explicitly marking
> capturing terms in case's:
>
> match foo:
> case ("foo", >val1):
> ...
> case ("bar", >val2):
> ...
I agree with that, though I would prefer using other symbol than > (?
or $), one of reasons would by it would look better as "match all"
target, other one that in future. it would allow extending syntax for
simple guards like ?x < 100.
--
闇に隠れた黒い力
弱い心を操る
_______________________________________________
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/PF5NNAXG2RKR3WFBEQ65JHZVI73Z7CYB/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
