> This is how Python has always been.
Nah, idiomatic Python always used to prefer comprehensions over explicit loops. This is just the `match` statement making code 3x longer than it needs to be.
Nah, idiomatic Python always used to prefer comprehensions over explicit loops. This is just the `match` statement making code 3x longer than it needs to be.
As for the logic, I would still use pattern matching for branching and destructuring, but I’d put it in a helper. More lines is not a negative in my book, though I admit the thing with convert and format is weird.
Yeah, using a helper function makes things much clearer. To be honest though, I'm not a huge fan of using either `isinstance` (which is generally a sign of a bad design) nor `match/case` (which is essentially a "modern" way to write `isinstance`).
I can't help but think that a better design could avoid the need for either of those (e.g. via polymorphism).
Haskell also has operator overloading on steroids so you could use the (|>) operator from Flow and write transformations the same as you would shell pipes. I’d love to whip up an example but it’s difficult on this tiny screen. Will try to remember when I’m on my computer.
Before someone chimes in with ML propaganda, I warn you that I’m going to exercise my rights under the Castle Doctorine the moment you say “of”.
I wrote it up (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43650001) before reading your comment :)