Allow more complex patterns (without context)

At Python Brasil, we talked a lot about how Pattern obj is so limited and how we could improve it. The main point of the discussion was how we could implement other “types” of patterns:

patterns = [
    # 1)
    Pattern('ping', ping),
    RegexPattern(r'^ping \d*$', regex_ping), # "ping 123" would be accepted
    StartswithPattern('/ping', regex_ping), # "/ping bottery" would be accepted

    # 2) or
    Pattern('ping', ping),
    Pattern(r'^ping$', regex_ping, type='regex'),
    Pattern('/ping', regex_ping, type='startswidth'),

    # 3) or
    Pattern('ping', ping),
    Pattern(r'^ping$', regex_ping, validator=regex_validator),
    Pattern('/ping', regex_ping, validator=startswith_validator),
    # where regex_validator and startswith_validator are the checkers
]

I believe the second “kind of” pattern is the easiest for who will use Bottery. But I think we should discuss it better.

@nicoddemus @muriloviana @mawkee @ElSaico @leportella

[mawkee]

I think I prefer the first option. This would give us more flexibility for extra attributes depending on the pattern class; for instance, it’d make sense for RegexPattern to be able to use named groups, but that would make zero sense for Pattern. It’d be easier for IDEs to show some hints based on the pattern class

Even though 2 could potentially be easier to implement, on the long run it could increase complexity.

[leportella]

Although I think that the second (2) option seems as an easier way to remember things, I personally prefer the first one.

I think the first option would be easier to remember, easier to document and generates lines with less characters, which makes it more readable. Also, you can explore and individualize each of the patterns very well, which seems easier for me.