Martin Panter added the comment:
Regarding doc strings, it seems that a constant f-string without any
interpolations does become a doc string. But I would treat this as an
implementation detail, not something to advertise.
Attached is my attempt at a patch. Please have a look and let me know if there
are things I missed, if I added too much detail, wrong terminology, or
whatever. I haven’t really written documentation like this before.
The combinations and permutations of all the Fr". . ." prefixes are getting
borderline out of hand in the lexical_analysis.rst grammar. Any suggestions?
I put the bulk of the documentation in a new section “Formatted string
literals” of the Lexical Analysis chapter, the same place that describes escape
sequences and raw strings. Let me know if there is a more appropriate place for
it. It doesn’t feel quite right where it is because this chapter comes before
Expressions, and f-strings use expressions inside them.
I also made minimal changes to existing parts of the documentation and
tutorial, to point to the new documentation. Perhaps some code examples could
be changed from str.format() to f". . .", but I think that would be the subject
of a separate patch. There are even places that still use the outdated
"{0}".format() numbering.
----------
keywords: +patch
nosy: +martin.panter
stage: needs patch -> patch review
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file41839/f-strings.patch
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue25179>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
