Christian Tanzer wrote:
Eric Smith wrote at Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:24:33 -0400:
Vinay Sajip wrote:
BTW I sent Eric a private mail re. the "0o" versus "0" issue, to see if it was
worth raising an enhancement request on the bug tracker using "O" to generate
compatible rendering for octals.
I didn't get your message, could you resend?.
I was thinking the same thing, but it seems like a transition step. I'd
rather not keep such backward compatibility hacks (if you will) around
for the long haul. How about a flag (maybe '*') at the start of the
format specification which says "operate in backward compatibility
mode"? We could document it as being only useful for the % to {}
translator, and promise to remove it at some point in the future. Either
actually deprecate it or just promise to deprecate it in the future.
That doesn't seem very useful to me. IIUC, the point of the translator
is to allow porting of the millions of existing %-formating operations
to the new-style .format.
If the result of that is deprecated or removed a few years from now,
all maintainers of long existing code have exactly the same problem.
I was thinking of it as a transition step until all application code
switched to {} formatting. In which case the application has to deal
with it.
IMHO, either the translation is done once and gives identical output or
it isn't worth doing at all.
I disagree. I doubt even 0.001% of all format strings involve octal
formatting. Is it really worth not providing a transition path if it
can't cover this case?
Eric.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
