On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:18:30PM +0200, Alexis Masson wrote: > Anyway, yes, `_` as joker has flaws, the biggest one being to be a > resolvable variable name ; what is the expected behaviour when running a > script that has (even accidentally) a viariable named `_` ? The question > is even more pressing in REPL, since there /is/ necessarily such a > variable !
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0634/#id3 "A wildcard pattern always succeeds. It binds no name." I'm pretty sure that this means that the intended behaviour is that any existing `_` name will be untouched. # Untested. _ = 'My hovercraft is full of eels.' x = 100 match x: case _: assert _ == 'My hovercraft is full of eels.' I would expect that assertion will pass. Everyone really ought to read the justification for the underscore in PEP 635 before commenting further: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0635/#id23 -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/P33QJ2H3OX3G4LE3CIRVD5JSH53ODDH3/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
