Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>Crutcher Dunnavant wrote:
>>
>>>>>1. Shouldn't there be a format method, like S.format(), or S.fmt()?
>>>
>>>Why? Because:
>>>1 It is trivially cheap, format() would be the same function as __rmod__
>
>
> No it shouldn't be. format() should be a varargs function; __rmod__
> takes a single argument which may be a tuple. Also, format() could
> take keyword args in case the string contains named format, so I can
> write e.g. "%(foo)s".format(foo=123).
Would "%(foo)s".format({'foo': 123}) work? Or would you need **{...}?
FWIW, I suspect I'd be much more likely to use named %'s with .format()
than with %; which is probably good, since named markers are more
flexible. E.g., I never do: "%(path)s: path %(path)r does not exist" %
{'path': path}, but I often do "%s: path %r does not exist" % (path,
path). But the first form is really better in several ways.
If .substitute() (or .sub()?) was available to do $-based substitution
alongside .format() for %-based substitution, that would both have a
nice symmetry and make it more comfortable to move between the two.
>>>3 I am not arguing _against_ syntactic support, I am arguing _for_ a method;
>>> we can keep the syntactic support.
>
>
> But remember TOOWTDI from the Zen of Python.
Syntactic support does allow for a level of flexibility (evaluation)
plus security (special casing literals) that no method can provide.
--
Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
