Hi, I am just reading through PEP 636 -- Structural Pattern Matching: Tutorial. I'll give my views as I go along...
I really liked the choice of example - a text adventure. I am old enough to relate to it, and I guess a quick google would inform others.
Section "Matching sequences" serves as a gentle introduction to a match statement with one case
Subsequent sections expand on aspects of match: literals seem to match literally; names, (also called variables), when matched are also bind-to for use in the stastements, (plueral), of the case block.
skipping a few sections to something that is stated, that is nevertheless a departure from previous uses, that is the treatment of the underscore.
Underscores
In section "Adding a wildcard" underscore becomes more than just a valid name, as it is outside the match statement.
Underscore always matches an object - just like any other identifier name; but does not get assigned the object it matches - like any other name.
Their example:
match command.split():
case ["quit"]: ... # Code omitted for brevity
case ["go", direction]: ...
case ["drop", *objects]: ...
... # Other cases
case _:
print(f"Sorry, I couldn't understand {command!r}")
You cannot write the following
match command.split():
case ["quit"]: ... # Code omitted for brevity
case ["go", direction]: ...
case ["drop", *objects]: ...
... # Other cases
case _:
print(f"Sorry, I couldn't understand {_!r}")
As _ is not assigned. Is it de-assigned in this block or will an earlier assignment outside the match statement still exist?
I am curious as to the decision for this extra non-assignment behaviour for underscore?
Testing Scope and Assignment
Lets expand on their example assigning names globally and trying different commands to match different case clauses:
_, direction, objects = "_ global", "direction global", "objects global" print(f"{(_, direction, objects)=}") command = "Nothing to match" for command in ["quit", "quit me", "go south", "drop anvil arrows"]: print(f"\n## COMMAND IS: {command!r}\n") match command.split(): case ["quit"]: print("quit") print(f"{(_, direction, objects)=}") case ["go", direction]: print("go", direction) print(f"{(_, direction, objects)=}") case ["drop", *objects]: print("drop", objects) print(f"{(_, direction, objects)=}") case _: print(f"Sorry, I couldn't understand {command!r}") print(f"{(_, direction, objects)=}")
Output:
xx
Python 3.10.0a7 (tags/v3.10.0a7:53e5529, Apr 6 2021, 10:20:47) [MSC v.1928 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license()" for more information. >>> ======== RESTART: C:/Users/paddy/Google Drive/Code/python_3_10_match.py ======== (_, direction, objects)=('_ global', 'direction global', 'objects global') ## COMMAND IS: 'quit' quit (_, direction, objects)=('_ global', 'direction global', 'objects global') ## COMMAND IS: 'quit me' Sorry, I couldn't understand 'quit me' (_, direction, objects)=('_ global', 'direction global', 'objects global') ## COMMAND IS: 'go south' go south (_, direction, objects)=('_ global', 'south', 'objects global') ## COMMAND IS: 'drop anvil arrows' drop ['anvil', 'arrows'] (_, direction, objects)=('_ global', 'south', ['anvil', 'arrows']) >>>
Concentrating on underscore, we see that it always has the initially assigned global value.
Once direction is changed in the case statement, however, it is this global value that is changed and the next iteration of the loop that does not match to it shows its new changed value.
The special treatment of underscore seems odd to me? Why not assign to it like normal and have only the special treatment of checking that if it is the only pattern then that pattern is the last pattern?
As
Reading section "Capturing matched sub-patterns" I kind of thought ahead and was thinking "another use for the walrus operator", until the use of the as keyword revealed itself :-)
"as" reads well, I like it.
Type and attribute matching
Yay! Duck type friendly matching of attribute names.
Outside of a match statement a call of MyObject might require arguments, but it seems that MyObject() is valid in a match statement, regardless - something to remember.
END?
I'll stop here for now although there is more of the doc to read.
No comments:
Post a Comment