On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 at 01:27, Greg Ewing <[email protected]> wrote: > That's a fairly complex bit of mental parsing to do > when reading a case.
I agree, that's why I wrote pattern matching seems exotical to me. I was accustomed by Python to read the code as if it's wrote in simple English. I must admit this is not entirely true for more complex features (generators, async etc), but I feel pattern matching particularly less readable. So any effort to make it more readable is good IMHO. My two cents of a simple programmer. On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 at 01:43, Greg Ewing <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 22/11/20 1:07 pm, Henk-Jaap Wagenaar wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 19:58, Glenn Linderman <[email protected] > > <mailto:v%[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Don't () already indicate an expression to be evaluated? > > > > Does it? > > > > [(a, b)] = [(0, 1)] > > Presumably a comma would be needed to match a 1-tuple. > > case (x): # matches the value of x > > case (x,): # matches any 1-tuple and binds x I think it could potentially be confused with a programmer style. Parenthesis are optional for tuples. Someone could think it could also write case x: to match the value of x, but actually it binds to x and it will be hard to debug. _______________________________________________ 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/4B3XUSEZGCYCQMOFCGRQ3H76MT3GGTJ4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
