[pfalcon]

> It's still hosted there on the PEP site.

On the PEP site, https://www.python.org/dev/peps/ , there're a lot of deadlocked PEPs, some of them a good and better would have been within, than without.

> Rejecting this PEP allows a better implementation in the future.

Let's count - 3rd-party patmatching libs for Python exists for 10-15 years. And only now some of those people who did their work as "third parties" came to do it inside mainstream Python.

The "future" you talk about is on the order of a decade. (Decade(s) is for example a timespan between 1st attempts to add string interpolation and f-strings landing).

I myself was ardent critic of PEP622/PEP634. I find situation with requiring "case Cls.CONST:" to match against constants to be unacceptable. But I'm pragmatic guy, and had to agree that it can be resolved later. The core pattern matching support added isn't bad at all. Could have been better. Best is the enemy of good.

[CogitoCogito]

> On the PEP site, https://www.python.org/dev/peps/ , there're a lot of deadlocked PEPs, some of them a good and better would have been within, than without.

If it's deadlocked, it really _shouldn't_ be added.

> Let's count - 3rd-party patmatching libs for Python exists for 10-15 years. And only now some of those people who did their work as "third parties" came to do it inside mainstream Python.

What's wrong with multiple implementations? Maybe people want different things? Besides the implementations' existence shows that lack of language support isn't something that blocks the use of pattern matching. Also moving it into the language doesn't mean people will work on that one implementation. Haven't you heard that packages go to the standard library to die? Why would it be any different in the python language. Besides I'm sure that the 3rd party libs will continue to be used anyway.

> But I'm pragmatic guy, and had to agree that it can be resolved later. The core pattern matching support added isn't bad at all. Could have been better. Best is the enemy of good.

I'm pragmatic too. I understand that I can do everything that this PEP introduces without the change to the language. I also understand that this PEP could continue to be worked on and improved. It's true that best is the enemy of good. I (and obviously many others here) believe that this is _bad_.

[pfalcon]

> What's wrong with multiple implementations?

It's absolutely great, and I'm saying that as someone working 5+ years on an alternative Python dialect (exactly with a motto of "down with toxic lead-acid batteries").

> Also moving it into the language doesn't mean people will work on that one implementation.

Only on that one - god forbid. But gather around that particular implementation to make it better and polish rough edges - for sure. (While the rest of impls will remain niche projects unfortunately.)

> I (and obviously many others here) believe that this is _bad_.

And me, and many others, believe it's good ;).

[CogitoCogito]

Well I guess the most useful information I've gotten out of this thread is that there are many other implementations already. I'll try to remember that the next time I see someone use the PEP version in one of my python projects so I can recommend them to use one of the third-party libs. I see no reason to believe they'd be any worse than this.

[pfalcon]

The fact that you weren't even aware that 3rd-party pattern matching solutions for Python existed before, makes me hard to believe that will put your actions where your words are. Mere searching on Github would gives 156 hits: https://github.com/search?q=python+pattern+matching . Divided by 2 for mis-matches, it's still sizable number of projects.

And that's problem #1 - you'll have hard time to choose among them (even though there're projects with 3.3K stars; but that of course doesn't mean such a project is the "best"). And secondly, many of them are indeed "worse" in the sense they're less general than the PEP version. Third common problem is sucky syntax - unsucky one require macro-like pre-processing of the source, and sadly, that's not a common norm among Python users (it should be, just as the availability of the block scope). I bet you will chicken out on the 3rd point, if not on first 2 ;-).

So yes, "official" support for pattern matching was in the dire need to organize the space. Now, 3rd-party libs can clearly advertise themselves as "We're like official patmatching, but fix the wart X/Y/Z". Bliss.

[CogitoCogito]

> The fact that you weren't even aware that 3rd-party pattern matching solutions for Python existed before, makes me hard to believe that will put your actions where your words are.

Well of course I won't use it myself. I don't find it necessary in python. My simple policy will be stand against any usage of this language feature in any code I write or contribute to. Those who want to use cases can either use other language features or third-party libraries which I'd have to study as well. Are you seriously looking down upon me because I haven't used third-party libraries that I consider unnecessary?

> And that's problem #1 - you'll have hard time to choose among them

This point is nonsense. All this shows is there is no agreement on how a third-party package should implement this feature. If anything, it argues against its inclusion in the language.

> And secondly, many of them are indeed "worse" in the sense they're less general than the PEP version.

All this says is that the PEP version isn't the worst implementation out there. It in no way implies that it should be included in the language.

> Third common problem is sucky syntax

So far this is the only time in all your posts in this thread that I've seen you give one reasonable argument. Congrats it took you long enough. So I'll give you this. Make the semantics non-idiotic (i.e. at least fix scoping as well as don't treat variable names and constants differently) and I'll accept it. I'm personally not against pattern-matching. I don't consider necessary by any stretch, but if its design makes sense it is at worst benign.

> So yes, "official" support for pattern matching was in the dire need to organize the space.

It's funny how the vast majority of feedback I see on the internet argues otherwise. It seems pretty clear this was neither needed not implemented well.

Anyway I'll bow out here. You seem less interested in learning what people outside of python-list actually care about or want and more interested in explaining why python-list's position is right. It requires impressive lack of self-reflection. Anyway pattern matching is in. The current form will make python a little worse as a language, but it's still overall quite good language. Maybe improvements will be made to make it tolerable (though I doubt it if your attitude is representative of python-list/python-dev/etc.). If stupidity like this keeps up the language will just slowly devolve, but it's not likely to be a bad language for many many years yet and well there are always other languages to choose from. It's unreasonable to expect a group to make good decisions forever.

[pfalcon]

> My simple policy will be stand against any usage of this language feature in any code I write or contribute to.

Dude, you're just like me! I have the same attitude towards f-strings ;-). Except I know that I will use them sooner or later. But I'm not in hurry. You maybe won't believe, but I found a use even for ":=" operator.

> So far this is the only time in all your posts in this thread that I've seen you give one reasonable argument.

Oh, you're so kind to me!

> You seem less interested in learning what people outside of python-list actually care about or want and more interested in explaining why python-list's position is right.

I'm a flexible guy. On Python lists, I'm argue against f-strings, assignment operators, and about deficiencies in proposed pattern matching. On interwebs with guys like you, I'm arguing trying to help them see the other side. And no worries, your opinion is very important to me.

[jnxx]

> Let's count - 3rd-party patmatching libs for Python exists for 10-15 years. And only now some of those people who did their work as "third parties" came to do it inside mainstream Python.

Well, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, why not introduce a macro system into Python which allows to experimentally implement such syntactic changes as a library?

[pfalcon]

First of all, macro systems for Python exist for decades (just as long as pattern matching, and indeed, many patmatching implementations are done as macros). One well-know example of both is https://macropy3.readthedocs.io/en/latest/pattern.html

Secondly, there's a PEP to embrace macros in CPython (instead of pretending they don't exist, and leaving that to external libraries): https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0638/

But the point, you don't need to wait for official PEP to use macros in Python. If you wanted, you could do that yesterday (== decades ago). And I guess in absolute numbers, the same amount of people use macros in Python as in Scheme. It's just in relative figures, it's quite different, given that there're millions of Python users.

[jnxx]

So, if it isn't finished, why do people not use pattern matching implemented as a macro, until things like scoping are ironed out?

[pfalcon]

For as long as you're a human and belong to category of "people", you can answer that question as good as anyone else. And your answer is ...?

(Just in case my answer is: https://github.com/pfalcon/python-imphook , yet another (but this time unsucky, I swear!) module which allows people to implement macros (among other things)).