Hacker News Reader

Comment by tialaramex | Hacker News Reader

Which x? There are two in your code, one for each time you introduce a pattern Some(x) and each x has scope which of course ends when that pattern is done with

Notice that the Python doesn't work this way, we didn't make a new variable but instead changed the existing one.

Also, the intent in the Python was a constant, in Rust we'd give this constant an uppercase name by convention, but regardless it's a constant and so of course matching against a constant does what you expect, it can't re-bind a constant, 404 is a constant and so is `const NOT_FOUND: u16 = 404;`

View on HN

> Which x? There are two in your code, one for each time you introduce a pattern Some(x) and each x has scope which of course ends when that pattern is done with

if each x's scope ends at the end of each case doesn't that mean there's only one x?

> we didn't make a new variable but instead changed the existing one.

so because python doesn't have scopes except for function scopes it shouldn't ever have any new features that intersect with scope?

Also this is pretty much in line for the rest of Python leaving variables around.

    for x in [1]:
      pass
    print(x) # => 1

The match statement presented is equivalent to an assignment, you do have to know that, but then it's just regular Python.

Being in line with the bad original design decision is another bad design decision, python developers should have a courage to admit these instances to benefit from better decisions in new peps. They didn't do it with pattern matching and now the language has another inferior implementation of a feature that, if implemented correctly, should have had clear block scopes, defined as expressions (as opposed to statements), and disallowed type-diverging branches. Java has designed it right, by the way, despite having a differently behaving switch statement in the language already.

> Being in line with the bad original design decision is another bad design decision

I disagree. Consistently going with the "bad" choice (in this case, leaking the variable to the outer scope) is better inconsistently swinging between 2 ways of doing things. Least astonishment!

"We've made this mistake before so for consistency we need to repeat it" is such a bad idea. Ideally you want a way to go back and fix things you got wrong, but, even if you can't do that (which is itself a defect and you should figure out how you can improve) you should improve as you move forward.

C++ has struggled with this, so that paper authors sometimes plead with the committee not to make their proposal needlessly worse in the name of "consistency" with existing bad features. This famously failed for std::span, which thus managed to be not only a real world footgun in a language which already has plenty of footguns but also a PR footgun - because for "consistency" the committee removed the safety from the safety feature and I believe in C++ 26 they will repair this so it's just pointless rather than actively worse...

> "We've made this mistake before so for consistency we need to repeat it" is such a bad idea.

no it's not. you literally have no other choice. you cannot add scopes after the fact - it is a breaking change. you cannot have some parts of the language have scopes and others not - it's so much worse for the user. think about human languages and which ones get quoted as being the hardest to learn (those with many exceptions). you're just wrong.

Or stated another way, adding block scoping necessitates Python 4. You could be cheeky and make it work in a backwards compatible way by adding new opt-in syntax but it wouldn't fix match nor be terribly ergonomic having to declare it all the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com