---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Implicit string literal concatenation
considered harmful?
To: Christian Tismer <tis...@stackless.com>
Cc: Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de>, "python-id...@python.org"
<python-id...@python.org>
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Christian Tismer <tis...@stackless.com> wrote:
> So if there was some notation (not specified yet how) that triggers correct
> indentation at compile time without extra functional hacks, so that
>
> long_text = """
> this text is left justified
> and this line indents by two spaces
> """
>
> is stripped the leading and trailing \n and indentation is justified,
> then I think the need for the implicit whitespace operator would be small.
Through participating in this thread, I've realised that the
distinction between when I use a triple quoted string (with or without
textwrap.dedent()) and when I use implicit string concatenation is
whether or not I want the newlines in the result. Often I can avoid
the issue entirely by splitting a statement into multiple pieces, but
I think Guido's right that if we didn't have implicit string
concatenation there's no way we would add it ("just use a triple
quoted string with escaped newlines" or "just use runtime string
concatenation"), but given that we *do* have it, I don't think it's
worth the hassle of removing it over a bug that a lint program should
be able to pick up.
So I'm back to where I started, which is that if this kind of problem
really bothers anyone, start thinking seriously about the idea of a
standard library linter.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
python-id...@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
_______________________________________________
code-quality mailing list
code-quality@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/code-quality
