Brandt Bucher

I don't care much, as long as we're consistent. But, my initial reaction is: - "type pattern" - "attribute pattern" - no idea - "name pattern" - "assignment pattern"

I find this well-reasoned and quite persuasive. *If* we went this route, we would probably still need a way for classes to opt-out of the match protocol (currently done with...

> Why would we even need a way for classes to opt out? The current spec allows classes to opt-out, and I guess I assumed we had a good reason...

This actually makes things a lot cleaner. Okay, I support it. > I think the only downside is that if in the future we decide to add a `__match__` function,...

@Tobias-Kohn > Are you sure you want to throw all this power overboard? Yeah, but only because it's big enough to sink the boat and powerful enough to swim on...

> But let us just take a step back and not concentrate on the exact protocol for a moment. The suggestion is then to just throw everything out, basically reducing...

I guess, for me, it comes down to this: Does the PEP *need* `__match__` (even as a totally optional protocol), and if not, will it *significantly benefit* from it? I...

@dmoisset Sorry, I thought he was talking to me (I already finished something and will have a PR up in a moment).

python/peps#1484

@thautwarm, please let it go. Your suggestion is off-topic, has already been rejected twice, and does not solve this issue being addressed here.