I don't think my proposal should be off the table for scope reasons because it
requires the syntaxes to be completely unified and interchangeable, which will
be impossible if the current PEP is accepted. I guess it's technically possible
to still have the pattern-matching syntax be slightly diff
I guess it might work in a separate PEP, but I'm also a little worried because
the current PEP would make that impossible with its subtle incompatibilities
with the existing unpacking syntax. Or even more inconsistent, if the
assignment target syntax is extended to become similar to the match sy
I saw in the PEP that "Allow more flexible assignment targets instead" was
rejected, but I actually think it's a good idea. The current PEP means there
will be two different, subtly incompatible ways to destructure objects (match
statement and iterable unpacking). The reasoning given was that mo
