> I agree with this 100% but I can't see it working unless we have some
> sort of transition plan. Just saying "ok, switch your format strings
> from % to {}" didn't work in Python 3.0 for various good reasons, and
> I can't imagine it will work in Python 4.0 unless we have a transition
> plan.
Th
Carl Trachte wrote:
I've skimmed over the PEP, and the new {}-syntax seems to have some nice
features. But I've not seen it used anywhere yet.
I am using it with 3.1 in an unreleased book I am still writing, and
will in any code I publish.
Rami Chowdhury posted this to a mailing list; I'
> -1 That requires keeping formatting information around in every string
> instance.
Adding new "format_string" class avoids it.
unicode("foo") <=> u"foo"
format_string("foo") <=> f"foo"
This way's pros:
* Many libraries can use one transition way.
* Transition stage syncs to Python version. "l
What about using string prefix 'f'?
f"{foo} and {bar}" % something == "{foo} and {bar}.format(something)
s = f"{foo}"
t = "%(bar)s"
s + t # raises Exception
Transition plan:
n: Just add F prefix. And adding "format_string" in future.
n+1: deprecate __mod__() without 'F'.
n+2: libraries
>> Do the users get any say in this?
>
> I'm a user! :-)
>
> I hate calling methods on string literals, I think it looks very odd to
> have code like this:
>
> "Displaying {0} of {1} revisions".format(x, y)
>
> Will we be able to write this as
>
> "Displaying {0} of {1} revisions" % (x, y)
>
>
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:05, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 20:03, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>
>> [Terry Reedy]
>>>
>>> I would agree, for instance, that an auto-translation tool is needed.
>>
>> We should get one written. ISTM, every %-formatting
>> string is directly translatabl
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2009/9/30 Ben Finney :
>> Barry Warsaw writes:
>>
>>> The first (and hopefully last) release candidate for Python 2.6.3 is
>>> now available
>> […]
>>
>> Thank you for this announcement, and the efforts that go into making
>> this work available.
>>
>> *Especially* thank
On 1 Oct 2009, at 10:37, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Eric Smith wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Steven Bethard wrote:
There's a lot of code already out there (in the standard library
and
other places) that uses %-style formatting, when in Python 3.0 we
should be encouraging {}-style formatting.
I
Brett Cannon wrote:
> No one is saying we should deprecate % any time soon on strings
> themselves or anywhere. This discussion is purely in regards to
> argparse and logging to transition *their* APIs over to {} formatting
> which would most likely involve some deprecation for *using* %
> formatti
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> If we can't find a way to make things almost transparent, we should IMO
> abandon
> the whole idea of a transition.
Yep - this is the reason some attempts at actual format translation
implementations started up as a result of the previous discussion.
Without that, I suspec
2009/9/30 Ben Finney :
> Barry Warsaw writes:
>
>> The first (and hopefully last) release candidate for Python 2.6.3 is
>> now available
> […]
>
> Thank you for this announcement, and the efforts that go into making
> this work available.
>
> *Especially* thank you for avoiding the oxymoronic “Rel
11 matches
Mail list logo
