[exKAZUu]

Why

Match as patterns leave their binding identifier unfielded, while expression as patterns expose an alias field. This implements the match-pattern field request in tree-sitter/tree-sitter-python#312 without changing accepted syntax or node nesting.

Requirements

• required: Improve our forked tree-sitter and grammar repositories as much as possible, ignoring backward compatibility; review our issues and major upstream issues, PRs and recent commits and create dedicated nonduplicate PRs from latest main for eligible items.
• required: Run review-booster and complete-pr concurrently, then release the changes.
• chosen: Expose the match-pattern binding through the existing alias field, keeping the current node structure and grammar precedence because the missing metadata needs no syntax change.
• chosen: Check public field traversal, standard queries and an incremental rename because corpus acceptance tests cannot detect a missing field.

Customer Summary

Consumers can retrieve the binding of case pattern as name through the alias field and standard field queries.

Technical Summary

grammar.js labels the binding identifier in _as_pattern; generated metadata and parse tables carry the field to native and Wasm parsers. The public API regression checks the field, query captures, source ranges, a real incremental rename, and the following statement.

Testing

Canonical generation with bun run build/ci, all 207 native corpus cases through bun wb test test/unit/corpus.test.ts, the new public API regression, and bun run verify passed. The regression fails against the prior Wasm artifact because its alias-field query is unsupported. All PR CI checks pass, including fuzz, examples, Wasm and native platform coverage.

Notes

Seven existing code-gauge errors remain outside this change: Python2 example GrammarTests.testFuncdef in both newline variants (159 NCSS), Python3 example GrammarTests.testFuncdef in both variants (187 NCSS), the Python3.8 example file (1,200 NCSS) and its test_funcdef (232 NCSS), and the external scanner dispatch (complexity 175/202 NCSS). Refactoring imported fixtures or the unrelated scanner would expand this metadata change. Forty-six existing warnings remain. The intentional LF/CRLF example duplicates would be suitable for a code-gauge exclusion; no exclusion configuration is added.