Bob Ippolito wrote:
A better proposal would probably be another string prefix that means
dedent, but I'm still not sold. doc processing software is clearly
going to have to know how to dedent anyway in order to support
existing code.
Agreed.
It is easy enough for any doc-string
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 01:08, Bob Ippolito wrote:
A better proposal would probably be another string prefix that means
dedent, but I'm still not sold. doc processing software is clearly
going to have to know how to dedent anyway in order to support
existing code.
OTOH, adding another
On 7/6/05, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, while I prefer what you describe to Python's current
behaviour, I am not yet convinced the backward compatibility pain is
worth it. Adding yet-another-kind-of-string-literal (when we already
have bytestrings on the horizon) is also
On 7/7/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think so. It smells too much of DWIM, which is very unpythonic. EIBTI.
In what way? The scheme described is explicit, and consistently
applied to all triple-quoted strings[*] -- although the rules are
different to the current
On 7/7/05, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe there were some current alternatives and concerns already
expressed that have not been included yet that maybe should be.
Yes; Nick pointed me to one, and I'll be looking at that and the
related discussions before redrafting; I'll also
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On 7/5/05, Andrew Durdin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have written a patch that changes the way triple-quoted strings are
scanned so that leading whitespace is ignored in much the same way
that pep 257 handles it for docstrings. Largely this was for a
learning experience
Andrew Durdin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/7/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think so. It smells too much of DWIM, which is very unpythonic.
EIBTI.
In what way? The scheme described is explicit, and consistently
applied to all triple-quoted strings[*] --
On 7/10/05, Andrew Durdin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/7/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think so. It smells too much of DWIM, which is very unpythonic.
EIBTI.
In what way? The scheme described is explicit, and consistently
applied to all triple-quoted strings[*]
On 7/11/05, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are wrong. Current string literals are explicit. They are what you
type.
No they are not:
I typed \x41, but got this!
'I typed A, but got this!'
What we have are not explicit string literals but *explicit rules*,
forming part
Andrew Durdin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/11/05, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are wrong. Current string literals are explicit. They are what you
type.
No they are not:
Apparently my disclaimer of except in the case of the decades-old
string escapes that were
On Jul 10, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
Andrew Durdin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/11/05, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are wrong. Current string literals are explicit. They are
what you
type.
No they are not:
Apparently my disclaimer of except in
Andrew Durdin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Very likely. But given the number of times that similar proposals have
been put forth in the past, it is reasonable to expect that they will
be brought up again in the future by others, if this is rejected--and
in that
Andrew Durdin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In general, I find triple-quoted strings to be very handy,
particularly for standalone scripts. However, the fact that they have
to be written in the left-hand column to avoid leading whitespace
really grates,
On 7/6/05, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doc strings, first meant for the code reader, need to be where they are.
They also come before the code itself, so don't interfere.
Doc strings are really not an issue, due to the conventions for
processing whitespace in them (and also the fact
Here's the draft PEP I wrote up:
Abstract
Triple-quoted string (TQS henceforth) literals in Python preserve
the formatting of the literal string including newlines and
whitespace. When a programmer desires no leading whitespace for
the lines in a TQS, he must align all lines
On 7/5/05, Andrew Durdin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have written a patch that changes the way triple-quoted strings are
scanned so that leading whitespace is ignored in much the same way
that pep 257 handles it for docstrings. Largely this was for a
learning experience in hacking the parser,
In general, I find triple-quoted strings to be very handy,
particularly for standalone scripts. However, the fact that they have
to be written in the left-hand column to avoid leading whitespace
really grates, particularly when they're nested within a block or two
-- it's a wart:
try:
On 7/5/05, Andrew Durdin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
print Usage: dostuff options
Options:
-c - blah blah
-f filename - do stuff with file filename
-s - more blah
Isn't the standard idiom for this already:
import textwrap
...
print textwrap.dedent(\
Usage:
Andrew Durdin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In general, I find triple-quoted strings to be very handy,
particularly for standalone scripts. However, the fact that they have
to be written in the left-hand column to avoid leading whitespace
really grates,
19 matches
Mail list logo
