Message397203
Nice find! In my opinion, we should do two things here:
- Update PEP 638 to specify that a SyntaxError is raised "if *any duplicate* key patterns are literal patterns". This was absolutely our original intention... I think the nuances were just lost in the final phrasing. I can take care of that PR.
- Update the compiler to raise SyntaxErrors for duplicate literal keys. It should be as simple as updating the first loop in compiler_pattern_mapping to build a set containing the values of any literal keys and raise on duplicates (and adding/updating tests, of course). We'll want to make sure we have test coverage of edge cases like {0: _, False: _}, {0: _, 0.0: _}, {0: _, -0: _}, {0: _, 0j: _}, etc.
Since you found this, you get first dibs on a PR. Otherwise, I have a few first-time contributors who would probably be interested. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2021-07-09 17:06:33 | brandtbucher | set | recipients:
+ brandtbucher, gvanrossum, quentel |
2021-07-09 17:06:33 | brandtbucher | set | messageid: <1625850393.69.0.304520730933.issue44589@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2021-07-09 17:06:33 | brandtbucher | link | issue44589 messages |
2021-07-09 17:06:33 | brandtbucher | create | |
|