My Comments about PEP 622(V1)

My Concerns

Python pattern matching is what in the very beginning motivates me, to study in the field of Programming Languages.

Now I’m skilled in more than 30 programming languages, and have developed a lot of interests in many other topics. My research topic is CPython compatible JIT compiler, it seems I cannot graduate if I cannot work it out.

From these facts, you know how special Python is to me.

Today, a friend of mine, laike9m referred me a tweet which talks about PEP 622, Structural Pattern Matching for Python..

My youth recalled!

Next, I read up the proposal, went to the cpython repo branch and checked the grammar.

There’re quite a few issues with the PEP and maybe the implementations, and I’d give my concerns in this article.

To convince the readers, I’d show my concerns with pattern matching stuffs:

  1. I’m familiar with pattern matching in many programming languages(including the languages mentioned in PEP 622).
  2. I understand the most complex and compelling parts of pattern matching in F#/OCaml, Haskell.
  3. I wrote lots of Scala code during some period, and I nearly only use case classes + abstract classes(using ADTs), and traits.
  4. I studied Elixir and Erlang and used to earn money with them, by writing games. Especially, I love Elixir’s pin-operators.
  5. I wrote lots of pattern matching implementations for Python:
    • moshmosh(it’s a Japanese phrase used in phone calls), which provides a nearly full-featured pattern matching implementation(most stuffs mentioned in PEP 622 are implemented there), and I’m pretty sure this is so far the fastest implementation because I do code generation statically.
    • Xython/pattern-matching, this is only for fun. The infrastructure of this library is conceptually the same as the very popular one PamPy, but I did this in year 2017.
  6. I also implemented the Extensible Pattern Matching for Julia Programming Language. Unlike moshmosh and Xython/pattern-matching, this library is actually widely in use because it’s very efficient, extensible and effective.
  7. (this item is a little bit academic)I have understandings about pattern matching from some other point of views, for instance, I can use denotational semantics to show the underlying structures of pattern matching: First-class Pattern Matching in the Final Approach.
  8. Maybe people in Python-ideas mailing list could remember what I post there in the summer of 2017. I modified CPython codebase and made something called “flowpython”, it supports basic pattern matching but is quite naïve/limited. Besides, I learned *BNF from CPython project, thanks a lot, now I’m quite skilled in parsing things.. that’s another story..

Scoping Issues

A simple example could show this:

a = 1
match [2, 3]:
    case [0, 1]: ...
    case [a, 2]: ...
    case _:

A pattern might fail in the halfway, I don’t yet see the specification talk anything about this problem.

In the exemplar code, variable a should be 1 before a match clause succeeded, and especially, expected to be 1 in the body of case _.

However, as the specification said:

Name bindings made during a successful pattern match outlive the executed suite and can be used after the match statement. This follows the logic of other Python statements that can bind names, such as for loop and with statement.

It seems that a will be modified unexpectedly to 2, when we come to the last match clause.

This is dangerous.

In moshmosh, I solved this issue by a simple technique called gensym, which means generating unique symbols that users cannot write down.

By gensym, before any match clause succeeded, an occurrence of name pattern will locally shadow a symbol. A simple scoping analysis shall solve this, by transforming

a = 1
match [2, 3]:
    case [0, 1]: ...
    case [a, 2]: ...
    case _:


a = 1
match [2, 3]:
    case [0, 1]: ...
    case [x$asda, 2]: 
        a = x$asda
    case _:

x$asda is a unique variable name used internally, exactly like how what we emit code for list/map/set comprehensions.

HINTS For people not familiar with CPython compiler details: we generate a variable whose name is .0, which couldn’t be written down by a user:

import dis

def f(x):
   return [i for i in x]

Disassembly of <code object <listcomp> at 0x000002694FF09C00, file "<...>", line 2>:
  2           0 BUILD_LIST               0
              2 LOAD_FAST                0 (.0)
        >>    4 FOR_ITER                 8 (to 14)
              6 STORE_FAST               1 (i)
              8 LOAD_FAST                1 (i)
             10 LIST_APPEND              2
             12 JUMP_ABSOLUTE            4
        >>   14 RETURN_VALUE


Comments about the rejection of AND (&) patterns

I saw AND patterns rejected, for

However, it’s not clear how useful this would be…

This can be extremely useful when working with custom patterns.

match value:
    case P1(a, b) and P2(c) when pred(a, b, c):

P1 and P2 here may be custom patterns, each of which destructs the data with one perspective, and extract something we’d use latter.

This can be very frequent in the real world, say we’re working with URL strings, assume that we’ve implemented some small patterns like Urlsplit and Urlopen, which respectively uses urllib.parse.urlsplit and urllib.request.urlopen and presents destructed results:

match url:
    case Urlsplit(netloc=n) and Urlopen(code=c)
        if c == 404 and n == "":

Without AND patterns, we cannot reuse the existing patterns like Urlsplit or Urlopen. This disables the composability/modularity of programs.

By providing AND patterns, it becomes feasible for us to decouple our codes by implementing small patterns. Users can reuse our patterns by combining them with AND patterns and OR patterns, even if we don’t know how our code will get used.

Consider Performance: Guards As Patterns

It’s well known that in many programming languages having pattern matching, the guards are treated as a special syntax. There’re a few:

case expr of
    pat | guard -> ...
match expr with
| pat when guard -> ...
expr match {
    case pat if guard => ...
match expr {
    pat if guard => ...,

…many examples

It seems that it’s a routine to make guards as a special syntax.

However, the problem is, all of them have very powerful static compilers or JIT compilers, in this case, putting conditional jumps later will help to optimize instruction pipelines for them.

Python does not have such advanced optimizations, hence an early check might helps to avoid redundant computations. For example:

match expr:
    case C(pat1 when p1, pat2, pat3):

If the failure of pat1 is considered frequent, we might put the check p1 earlier, to avoid computing pat2, pat3 redundantly in the most cases.

I have to admit adding a syntax for this is quite an issue, but the feature and its benefits can be practical.

Grammar Change & Feature Request: Parameterized Patterns

I saw this in the Deferred Ideas, and I want to stress this again at here.

The parameterized patterns can be very convenient in practice, and Microsoft Docs has given good explanations about this: F# Documents: Parameterized Active Patterns.

This can be naturally achieved in Python, by changing the grammar from

    | func=name_or_attr '(' ')' { _Py_Call(func, NULL, NULL, EXTRA) }


    | func=call_or_attr '(' ')' { _Py_Call(func, NULL, NULL, EXTRA) }
    | ...

    | call  # derives python's call syntax
    | NAME

call: ... # maybe 'primary'

In my implementation of pattern matching, moshmosh, a pattern is just an expr, For instance:

from moshmosh.extension import perform_extension
from inspect import getsource
import re

def rewrite(f):
    src = getsource(f)
    src = perform_extension(src)
    exec(src, f.__globals__)
    return f.__globals__[f.__name__]

class Regex:
    def __init__(self, r):
        self.p = re.compile(r)

    # This is moshmosh's '__match__' protocol,
    # which is different from PEP 622 proposal.
    # Also, slightly differs from
    # the proposal by this article
    def __match__(self, n_arg, instance):
        if n_arg == 1:
            match = self.p.match(instance)
            return match and match.groups()

def test():
# REPRODUCTION HINTS: the next line has semantics, do not delete it!
# +pattern-matching
    with match("PEP 622!"):
        if Regex("PEP (\d+\!)")(a):
        if _:
            print("not matched")

#=> 622!

Also, this can make InRange pattern more efficient:

class InRange:
    def __init__(self, lo, hi):
        self.range = range(lo, hi)

    def __match__(self, instance):
        if instance in self.range:
            return self
match 5:
    case InRange(0, 10)():

An Alternative __match__ Protocol Can be Better in Simplicity, Efficiency, and Expressivity.

Let me firstly introduce an alternative __match__ protocol.

  • RULE: no args

    match v: case C() matches, iff

    C.__match__(v, 0, ()) is ().

  • RULE: only positional args

    match v: case C(a1, a2, ..., an) matches, iff

    C.__match__(v, n, ()) matches a sequence pattern (a1, ..., an).

  • RULE: only keyword args

    match v: case C(k1=kp1, ..., kn=kpn) matches, iff

    C.__match__(v, 0, ('k1', ..., 'kn')) matches a tuple pattern (kp1, ..., kpn).

  • RULE: positional + keyword

    match v: case C(a1, ..., am, k1=kp1, ..., kn=kpn) matches, iff

    C.__match__(v, m, ('k1', ..., 'kn')) matches a tuple pattern (a1, ..., am, kp1, ..., kpn)

In fact, above 4 rules are consistent, and can be unified into one.

I separated them into 4, to show this is FULL-FEATURED, which means it can cover the functionalities of the __match__ protocol presented in PEP 622.

The advantage of this alternative design will make the custom patterns

  • simpler to write and understand, and
  • more efficient in runtime, and
  • more expressive

Simplicity of the alternative __match__ protocol

Avoiding __match_args__ already brings simplicity.

Besides, as the PEP says, InRange shall be made with custom patterns, we could consider its implementation.

After reading the PEP, I got to know how to implement this:

class Check:
    def __init__(self, f):
        self.f = f
    def __eq__(self, o):
        return self.f(o)

class InRangeProxy:
    def __init__(self, lo_check, hi_check):
        self.lo_check, self.hi_check = lo_check, hi_check
class InRange:
    __match_args__ = ['lo_check', 'hi_check']

    def __match__(self, instance):
        return InRangeProxy(
            Check(lambda lo: lo <= instance),
            Check(lambda hi: instance < hi)

match 5:
    case InRange(0, 10):

However, with the protocol proposed in this article:

class Check:
    def __init__(self, f):
        self.f = f
    def __eq__(self, o):
        return self.f(o)

class InRange:
    def __match__(self, instance, argcount: int, kwargs: Tuple[str, ...]):
       assert not kwargs
       match argcount:
           case 1: return (Check(lambda hi: instance < hi), )
           case 2: return (Check(lambda lo: lo <= instance),
                           Check(lambda hi: instance < hi))
           case _: raise ImpossibleMatch("...")

match 5:
    case InRange(6, 10): # in 'range(0, 10)'
    case InRange(6): # in 'range(6)'

Works exactly the same.

We will get the following benefits:

  • we avoid introducing a __match_args__, and its relatively complex rules for __match__.
  • we avoid introducing a proxy type
  • the return of __match__ has a shape quite similar to the pattern(intuitive).

The alternative __match__ protocol is efficient

Using a proxy type can result in more allocations, but this is not the most severe drawbacks.

The most crucial 2 drawbacks of current __match__ protocol are:

  1. it cannot verify the validation of argument count/keyword names earlier.
  2. __match_args__ produces an indirect lookup.

For the first point:

match expr:
    case C1(a=C2(...), b=C3(...), c=C4(...)):

Now, tell me, what if destructuring C1 should only accept keyword arguments a and b?

Currently, should we have to compute the matching for C2(...), C3(...), then find c=C4(...) invalid.

This is inefficient.

Also, when it comes to the positional arguments, currently we can limitedly check if the argument count is valid, by checking the count of sub-patterns with len(__match_args__). However our proposal __match__ protocol allows more flexible checks. See Better Expressivity for more details.

Anyway, with our proposal __match__ protocol, we can fail a match in proper time, to avoid redundant computations.

For the second point, indirect lookups can be expensive for tiny operations:

In [1]: x = [1, 2, 3]

In [2]: y = ["aaa", "bbb", "aba"]

In [3]: class S:
   ...:     def __init__(self, kws, args):
   ...:          for kw, arg in zip(kws, args):
   ...:              setattr(self, kw, arg)
   ...:          self._kws = kws
In [4]: s = S(y, x)

In [5]: %timeit x[1]
73.1 ns ± 1.54 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [6]: %timeit getattr(s, s._kws[1])
296 ns ± 8.25 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)

With compiler tricks, we can make getattr(s, s._kws[1]) faster, but it shall be still far slower than x[1].

Drawbacks of this proposal: when a proxy type is not needed, this alternative __match__ may be slower, as a tuple is always allocated.

The alternative __match__ protocol results in better expressivity

So far, the design for patterns [] is generic, which means Sequence instead of list, which can be non-intuitive in some degree.

With this alternative __match__ protocol, * in class pattern is automatically supported:

Like Sequence(a1, a2, *aseq, an), we need to do nothing other than implementing tuple patterns and this __match__ protocol.

This is sufficient to support Sequence interface, and can be implemented with our proposal __match__ protocol.

It’s considered useful to support arbitrary number of positional arguments for our custom patterns:

  • We have many kinds of data structure interfaces, other than only Sequence and Mapping.
  • We can then leave list literals([*_]) as-is, I mean this should only matches a list instead of any Sequences.


else Clauses in Pattern Matching

Just like what Ethan and others said in the mailing list, an else clause can be considered pretty: Every control flow statement has else.

Consistency considered important.

Guido replied “because it’s not needed”, for

But “case _:” is going to work regardless, so we might as well use it. Rust, Scala and F# do this too.

It’s pretty okay to hold the both. Rust, Scala and F# are static languages, our counterpart could be Ruby, which does use else even though they have wildcard patterns _.

Besides, In Haskell, otherwise is also introduced as well as the wildcard pattern _.

The main reason for the existence of anti-else voices is, the indentation level of case is greater than that of match,

match expr:
    case pattern:

Hence it becomes an issue to decide where to allow an else clause.

Grammar of Patterns Could Become That of Expressions

In the grammar, the following definition could be totally okay.

    | "case" pattern=named_expression guard=guard? ':' body=block {

~~Or patterns can be a or b instead of a | b, the operator precedence is already perfect.~~ So far using | in patterns seems to be consistent with its use in expressions.

When emitting bytecode from an AST node parsed from .a, we can raise a SyntaxError.

This way will make the implementation extremely easy and neat, I can evidence this as I have already implemented a Python pattern matching very close to what proposed by PEP 622, and I researched and implemented them a lot in a wider scope.