Hello, On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 00:00:41 +0300 Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev <python-dev@python.org> wrote:
> Who said "__future__"? Other people said __future__. And yet other said "it's ok the way it is, it's better to have it like that then keep not having it". And yet other said something else (multiple else's). > I said "3rd-party library". Independent from > the CPython project. Maybe even a few of them -- to try out > conflicting visions that emerged in the discussions. Such libraries exist for decade(s). MacroPy is a venerable, well-known macro-capabilities-for-Python solution, which offers a kind of pattern matching: https://macropy3.readthedocs.io/en/latest/pattern.html . There're a bunch of other, grep github. https://github.com/MegaIng/syntax-extensions-pep634 specifically advertises itself as pure-Python implementation of PEP634 (using a newer macro library), though I'm not sure how well it's development. It also of course represents the right way to develop Python - in Python itself. Sadly, "C" in "CPython" is stuck too deep in many minds... Bottom line is however: given the decade(s) old history of pattern matching in *Python* (usual warning: don't mix up Python and CPython!), arguing that very resourceful attempt to add pattern matching to the reference implementation (that's where *CPython* finally pops up), should be flushed down the toilet and the Python community should be brought back into decade-long waiting state without a reference implementation for pattern matching - umm, suggesting that doesn't seem to be very productive. > > On 06.02.2021 23:58, Steve Holden wrote: > > My suggestion that it be introduced via __future__ due to its > > contentious nature met immediate resistance. No point going down > > that road. > > > > Kind regards, > > Steve > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 8:15 PM Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev > > <python-dev@python.org <mailto:python-dev@python.org>> wrote: > > > > With such a large new area of functionality that's at odds with > > existing syntax and semantics and a lack of clear vision and > > agreement, it sounds like this would be better first added as a > > 3rd-party library to let the syntax and semantics mature. (To allow > > new syntax, it'll probably be parsing strings in that special > > syntax.) > > > > (At https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0634/ > > <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0634/>, there's no indication > > that this option was considered.) > > [] -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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/DSQAFJNKNB5RN44R5TFX6FNGAGTZBPTF/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
