> I think most of these points are irrelevant. The curly braces are not > just syntactic sugar, at least the opening brace is not; the digit > is not syntactic sugar in the case of message translations.
Are there "computation of matching braces" problems here? > That lots of people are familiar with the old format and only few are > with the new is merely a matter of time. Sure, but the problem is that there are a lot of Python programmers *now* and learning the new syntax imposes a burden on all of *them*. Who cares how many people know the syntax in the future? > That the new format is more verbose than the old one is true, but only > slightly so - typing .format is actually easier for me than typing > % (which requires a shift key). I don't mind the switch to ".format"; it's the formatting codes that I don't want to see changed. > Porting programs that have computed format strings is indeed a > challenge. The theory here is that this affects only few programs. I think you'll find it's more than a few. This issue is obviously an iceberg issue; most folks never thought you were going to remove the old formatting codes, just add a newer and more capable set. Bill _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
