[Tim]
> >> .... But what if
>>
> >> {EXPR!d:FMT}
> >>
> >> acted like the current
> >>
> >> EXPR={EXPR:FMT}
> >>
> >> ? I'd find _that_ useful often. For example, when displaying floats,
> >> where the repr is almost never what I want to see.
> >> ...
[Eric V. Smith <e...@trueblade.com>]
> After giving this some more thought, the problem with this approach is
> that there's no way to get the repr of the object, which for debugging
> can be pretty useful (think strings).
Sure there is:
f"{repr(var)!d"}
would expand to, as a matter of course (nothing special about it):
f"{repr(var)={repr(var)}"
which would yield, e.g.,
repr(var)=`a\n'
Special shortcuts for calling `repr()` went out of style when Guido got rid
of that meaning for the backtick symbol ;-)
Remember, by default
> object.__format__ calls object.__str__.
>
Which - since there's already a related default - makes it a Dubious Idea
to make some other spelling use a different default.
> I guess we could get around this by combining !d and !r and assigning
> some meaning to that, which I'd rather not do.
>
> Or, this occurred to me right before hitting "send": if there's no
> format spec, use repr(expr). If there is one (even if it's zero-length),
> use format(expr, spec). I'll have to think on that for a while. Maybe
> there's too much voodoo going on there.
>
The alternative: if I want repr,(which I usually don't), make me call
"repr()" (which I don't mind at all).
If there must be a shortcut, "!dr" or "!rd" are at least cryptically
explicit, and
{EXPR!dr}
would expand to
EXPR={repr(EXPR)}
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
