Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
mail.python.org
Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
#2Direct links to the PEPs themselves, to perhaps save others a little time.
Accepted:
Specification https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0634/
Motivation and Rationale https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0635/
Tutorial https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0636/
Rejected:
Unused variable syntax https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0640/
Explicit Pattern Syntax for Structural Pattern Matching https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0642/
Re: Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
#3It's interesting that pattern matching has been accepted despite a poll showing a majority (65%) of core developers opposed to this particular proposal, and a plurality (44%) opposed to pattern matching altogether.
https://discuss.python.org/t/gauging-sentiment-on-pattern-ma...
Re: Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
#4Is it still the case that these two pieces of code have different behaviour?
match status:
case 404:
return "Not found"
not_found = 404
match status:
case not_found:
return "Not found"
Re: Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
#5It's interesting that pattern matching has been accepted despite a poll showing a majority (65%) of core developers opposed to this particular proposal, and a plurality (44%) opposed to pattern matching altogether. https://discuss.python.org/t/gauging-sentiment-on-pattern-ma...
[deleted]
Re: Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
#6It's interesting that pattern matching has been accepted despite a poll showing a majority (65%) of core developers opposed to this particular proposal, and a plurality (44%) opposed to pattern matching altogether. https://discuss.python.org/t/gauging-sentiment-on-pattern-ma...
I'm not sure if you can read the 'accept 634 + another' options as opposed to 'accept 634' (that said you can't necessarily read it as in support of it either. This poll is a bit of a mess in that regard). But it's certainly contentious (all options including accepting 634 still only comes to 50%).
Re: Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
#7It's interesting that pattern matching has been accepted despite a poll showing a majority (65%) of core developers opposed to this particular proposal, and a plurality (44%) opposed to pattern matching altogether. https://discuss.python.org/t/gauging-sentiment-on-pattern-ma...
I'm not sure if you can read the 'accept 634 + another' options as opposed to 'accept 634' (that said you can't necessarily read it as in support of it either. This poll is a bit of a mess in that regard). But it's certainly contentious (all options including accepting 634 still only comes to 50%).
> I'm not sure if you can read the 'accept 634 + another' options as opposed to 'accept 634'
However, I’d say that “accept 634 + another” is clearly opposed to “accept 634 & reject both others”, which is the decision that has been made.
Re: Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
#8Is it still the case that these two pieces of code have different behaviour? match status: case 404: return "Not found" not_found = 404 match status: case not_found: return "Not found" IIRC in an earlier proposal, the former would check for equality (`status == 404`) and the latter would perform an assignment (`not_found = status`).
Yes, the variable names in the case patterns are treated like variables on the left hand side of an assignment statement. Whatever value they may have had before is irrelevant. A pattern which consists solely of a variable name is a wildcard pattern that matches anything, just as it would be on the left side of an assignment.
Edit: It is possible to use constants or variables in a case pattern, but they have to be dotted names to not be treated like a capture pattern. So this would work for your example:
class HttpStatus(Enum):
NOT_FOUND = 404
match status:
case HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND:
return "Not found"Re: Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if you can read the 'accept 634 + another' options as opposed to 'accept 634' (that said you can't necessarily read it as in support of it either. This poll is a bit of a mess in that regard). But it's certainly contentious (all options including accepting 634 still only comes to 50%).
> I'm not sure if you can read the 'accept 634 + another' options as opposed to 'accept 634' However, I’d say that “accept 634 + another” is clearly opposed to “accept 634 & reject both others”, which is the decision that has been made.
What matters (if the intent is to accurately determine the preferences of those voting) is whether those voting for those options would prefer rejecting all options or only accepting 634 (hence why ranked-choice voting is a thing). Either way it would probably be healthier for a larger consensus to form before committing to a decision.
Re: Python: Acceptance of Pattern Matching – PEP 634
#10Is it still the case that these two pieces of code have different behaviour? match status: case 404: return "Not found" not_found = 404 match status: case not_found: return "Not found" IIRC in an earlier proposal, the former would check for equality (`status == 404`) and the latter would perform an assignment (`not_found = status`).
Yes, the variable names in the case patterns are treated like variables on the left hand side of an assignment statement. Whatever value they may have had before is irrelevant. A pattern which consists solely of a variable name is a wildcard pattern that matches anything, just as it would be on the left side of an assignment. Edit: It is possible to use constants or variables in a case pattern, but they have to be do…
Do you know what would happen with:
def _id(x): return x
not_found = 404
match status:
case _id(not_found):
return "Not found"