[issue40434] Update of reasoning why there is no case statement

Joannah Nanjekye added the comment: > PEP 275 actually links to PEP 3103 to explain why it is rejected Well, am not very convinced if consensus was reached on range tests so I will refrain for someone else's opinion as it is not as apparent to me yet. --

[issue40434] Update of reasoning why there is no case statement

Ama Aje My Fren added the comment: the statement initially said that there was _no consensus yet on how to do range tests_. This is not true because there is now a decision to not do range tests - that decision is only in PEP 3103 and not in PEP 275 (PEP 275 actually links to PEP 3103 to

[issue40434] Update of reasoning why there is no case statement

Joannah Nanjekye added the comment: What is your reasoning on referencing just one of the PEPs and not both of them? -- nosy: +nanjekyejoannah ___ Python tracker ___

[issue40434] Update of reasoning why there is no case statement

Change by Ama Aje My Fren : -- type: -> enhancement ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue40434] Update of reasoning why there is no case statement

Change by Ama Aje My Fren : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +19110 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/19787 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue40434] Update of reasoning why there is no case statement

New submission from Ama Aje My Fren : The design and history FAQ (https://docs.python.org/dev/faq/design.html#why-isn-t-there-a-switch-or-case-statement-in-python) explains why there is no case statement referencing PEP 275(https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0275/). For Python 3 there is,