Nate Lust

I do think that ? is clearer in the case where you are have a store on an attribute lookup in a match case. I.E. ```python @dataclass class Record: a:...

@SaschaSchlemmer Im not sure to which part you are giving the thumbs down to, you prefer the spelling in the current proposal and implementation? I personally find it more surprising...

I think what you wrote is reasonable, I just happen to hold a different opinion. In you addendum, you use the example `Circle(1)` to match against a circle with unit...

If we loose loads, I think that mean we loose the ability to match against types (and not instances) that don't have a custom metaclass. There may be sometimes you...

@gvanrossum That was an unfortunate unconscious thing to use as a placeholder for the type of a class itself. It I probably should have used something that looked like a...

@Tobias-Kohn can you clarify what you mean about "change its meaning between invocations of the match". What I had envisioned with this example was some set of objects which could...

@Tobias-Kohn That was very well written, and I think I agree with you in the in the principal but maybe not in pragmatism. If you allow some specialization of arguments...

@Tobias-Kohn those are definitely some good points. Alternative interpreters are not something I interact with frequently and I definitely hadn't put much thought into them, so thanks expanding my thinking....

@Tobias-Kohn I think you are right, that it will just be about finding the right way to teach it, and everything will work out for the best. I think your...

@gvanrossum I don't believe it does. To my knowledge in rust you either must use a match guard, or their binding operator in cases like these (I am not a...