René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"suggestion to small improvement of PEP 634 -- Structural Pattern Matching","articleBody":"Firstly, congratulation on PEP 634, I just want to suggest an enhancement for the \"match\" statement. \r\n\r\n- When the matching against cases of pattern, there are some situations when there is no match.\r\n-  Using a cluster of  \"else\" make it more readable compared with using a wildcard case. \r\n-  It's likewise in cases of the \"if\", \"for\", \"try\" statements, when conditions are not matching or when elements in a collection are not found, having the cluster of \"else\" in the above-mentioned statements make the code syntaxial readable to express what the Python program should.\r\n\r\nFor example , taken from PEP 636 , instead of :\r\n\r\n```python\r\nmatch command.split():\r\n    case [\"go\", direction] if direction in current_room.exits:\r\n        current_room = current_room.neighbor(direction)\r\n    case [\"go\", _]:\r\n        print(\"Sorry, you can't go that way\")\r\n```\r\nthe programmer have express a possible situation as :\r\n\r\n```python\r\nmatch command.split():\r\n    case [\"go\", direction] if direction in current_room.exits:\r\n        current_room = current_room.neighbor(direction)\r\n    case [\"go\", _]:\r\n        print(\"Sorry, you can't go that way\")\r\n    else : \r\n        print( f\"Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by {command}.\")\r\n```\r\n\r\nI hope you got my point.\r\n\r\n\r\n","author":{"url":"https://github.com/alhabshi3k","@type":"Person","name":"alhabshi3k"},"datePublished":"2021-03-29T07:24:53.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":2},"url":"https://github.com/1898/peps/issues/1898"}