Ian Bicking wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
>
>>As for the % operator, I never liked it -- either a builtin function,
>>or even better a method of string objects, is going to be much more
>>readable (and my preference would be to have it take optional
>>positional arguments, corresponding to {1}, {2}, etc, and optional
>>named arguments, corresponding to {name} &c).
>
>
> Note that if it takes keyword arguments, but doesn't take a single
> dictionary-like object (like % and string.Template.substitute do), then
> you lose any ability to use clever or interesting dictionary-like
> objects for substitution.
>
Why doesn't the ** take care of this? To take your example, why doesn't
this work?
string.Template(pattern).substitute(**EscapingWrapper(**EvalingWrapper(**locals()))
Is it that you feel that adding ** is too much of a syntactic burden, or
am I just missing something?
Regards,
-tim
_______________________________________________
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
