On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 5:03 PM Jim J. Jewett wrote:
> I think your changed constructor:
>
> class Car:
> def __init__(self, manufacturer, variant):
> self.brand = manufacturer
> self.model = variant
>
> is a particularly good example, and the PEP should specify whether:
>
On 11/22/20 5:00 PM, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
I think your changed constructor:
class Car:
def __init__(self, manufacturer, variant):
self.brand = manufacturer
self.model = variant
is a particularly good example, and the PEP should specify whether:
Car("Chrysler", "PT Cr
I think your changed constructor:
class Car:
def __init__(self, manufacturer, variant):
self.brand = manufacturer
self.model = variant
is a particularly good example, and the PEP should specify whether:
Car("Chrysler", "PT Cruiser")
is matched by:
Car(brand="Chrysler
On 23/11/20 7:49 am, Daniel Moisset wrote:
Look at the following (non-pattern-matching) snippet:
event = datetime.date(x, month=y, day=z)
The only names that are treated as lvalues there are to the left
of an '='. The rules are a lot simpler.
One of the Zen lines says "If it's hard to exp
I suppose that does follow from treating _ specially by not binding to it at
all; I just hadn't thought through it. (I think my mental model had it wiping
out the previous binding even if the "new" one wasn't available.) So I would
prefer that this be stated explicitly in the PEP. (And maybe
I don't love the way it moves the variable name away from the capture location,
but it does offer a decent solution for anonymous placeholder variables (other
than _ or __), and makes it clear which variables are being bound (only those
in front of an = sign) vs limiting potential matches (anyth
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 at 00:31, Greg Ewing
wrote:
> On 22/11/20 6:47 am, David Mertz wrote:
> > I'm convinced by Guido,
> > Brandt, and others that the binding use will be far more common, so
> > adding extra characters for the 90% case does not feel desirable
>
> Minimising the number of characte
Others have replied with most of this covering my opinion but there's a
point I'd like to highlight here
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 14:23, Mark Shannon wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 20/11/2020 10:50 am, Daniel Moisset wrote:
> > (... snipping for brevity ...)
> >
> > 1. You mention a goal about "erro
Regarding the difficulty which some people have respecting class patterns and
dictionary patterns, I would like to draw attention to a similar feature in
JavaScript, object destructuring. JavaScript does not have pattern matching but
object destructuring is closely related. Take the example of a
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 at 01:27, Greg Ewing 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
