On 27 March 2014 20:47, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote: > The PEP 461 looks good to me. It's a nice addition to Python 3.5 and > the PEP is well defined.
+1 from me as well. One minor request is that I don't think the rationale for rejecting numbers from "%s" is incomplete - IIRC, the problem there is that the normal path for handling those is the coercion via str() and this proposal deliberately *doesn't* allow that path. That means supporting numbers would mean writing a lot of *additional* code, and that isn't needed since 2/3 compatible code can just be adjusted to use an appropriate numeric code. > Note: I fixed a typo in your PEP (reST syntax). I also committed a couple of markup tweaks, since it seemed easier to just fix them than explain what was broken. However, there are also two dead footnotes (4 & 5), which I have left alone - I'm not sure if the problem is a missing reference, or if the footnote can go away now. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
