NotificationsYou must be signed in to change notification settings
Fork1.7k
Star4.8k

PEP 622: More details on 'marker prefix for lookups' rejected idea#1564

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Closed

ncoghlan wants to merge1 commit intopython:masterfromncoghlan:pep-622-propose-rewording-of-some-rejected-ideas

Closed

PEP 622: More details on 'marker prefix for lookups' rejected idea#1564

ncoghlan wants to merge1 commit intopython:masterfromncoghlan:pep-622-propose-rewording-of-some-rejected-ideas

Conversation

Copy link

Contributor

ncoghlan commentedAug 15, 2020

The "Rejected Ideas" section didn't clearly cover the perceived
benefits of using a marker prefix on value lookup match patterns.

This expands on that section, while still making it clear that
the listed PEP authors don't agree that the proposal would actually
deliver the benefits that its proponents believe it would provide.

PEP 622: More details on 'marker prefix for lookups' rejected idea

8f7af3c

The "Rejected Ideas" section didn't clearly cover the perceivedbenefits of using a marker prefix on value lookup match patterns.This expands on that section, while still making it clear thatthe listed PEP authors don't agree that the proposal would actuallydeliver the benefits that its proponents believe it would provide.

the-knights-who-say-ni added the CLA signed label

Aug 15, 2020

ncoghlan requested a review frombrandtbucher

August 15, 2020 02:47

Copy link

Member

gvanrossum commentedAug 15, 2020

I'm sorry, I don't want the PEP to be a soapbox for this misguided idea. I'll adopt a few of the clarifications you are proposing at the beginning of the PR, but I don't feel your idea deserves this much airtime in the PEP.