Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-31 Thread Guido van Rossum
Eh. I don't see the point of arguing about the order. String literals may have one or more character prefixes that modify the meaning. Some of those prefixes may be combined; others may not. Given that we allow combining the r and b prefixes in either order, and we allow combining r and f, I don't

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-31 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 28 October 2015 at 20:05, Alexander Walters wrote: > Have you ever used a command line application that --accepted --Boolean > --flags? Have you ever found one that required the flags to be in order? > You remember how much you hated that application for being so

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-31 Thread Terry Reedy
On 10/31/2015 8:48 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Given that "f" is standing for a runtime transformation (unlike the purely declarative "b" and "r"), it makes sense to me to mentally translate it as "magic_format_call_that_needs_compiler_assistance()", so requiring the "f" to be first isn't

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-28 Thread Alexander Walters
Have you ever used a command line application that --accepted --Boolean --flags? Have you ever found one that required the flags to be in order? You remember how much you hated that application for being so arbitrary about the input? That is exactly how I feel about the order mattering for

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-27 Thread Sven R. Kunze
On 26.10.2015 20:54, Ethan Furman wrote: You misunderstand -- the order of string prefixes does *not* matter, so forcing us to use one is silly. I don't think so. It's better to have less possibilities in the beginning. So later on, we can easily relax the restrictions without breaking

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-27 Thread Mark Lawrence
On 27/10/2015 18:39, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 26.10.2015 20:54, Ethan Furman wrote: You misunderstand -- the order of string prefixes does *not* matter, so forcing us to use one is silly. I don't think so. It's better to have less possibilities in the beginning. So later on, we can easily

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-27 Thread Sven R. Kunze
On 27.10.2015 22:19, Eric V. Smith wrote: On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 27/10/2015 18:39, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 26.10.2015 20:54, Ethan Furman wrote: You misunderstand -- the order of string prefixes does *not* matter, so forcing us to use one

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-27 Thread Eric V. Smith
On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > >> On 27/10/2015 18:39, Sven R. Kunze wrote: >>> On 26.10.2015 20:54, Ethan Furman wrote: >>> You misunderstand -- the order of string prefixes does *not* matter, >>> so forcing us to use one is silly. >> >> I don't

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-26 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 22 October 2015 at 19:12, Eric V. Smith wrote: > On 10/22/2015 1:09 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: >> But it'd be weird now if fR worked but fbR didn't. > > Or bR (which is currently allowed) but not fbR in the future. My own objection isn't to allowing "fR" or "fbR", it's to

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-26 Thread Ethan Furman
On 10/26/2015 11:45 AM, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 26.10.2015 16:22, Ethan Furman wrote: On 10/23/2015 08:20 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: My own objection isn't to allowing "fR" or "fbR", it's to allowing the uppercase "F". I also don't understand why we can't say "if 'f' is part of a string prefix,

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-26 Thread MRAB
On 2015-10-26 18:45, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 26.10.2015 16:22, Ethan Furman wrote: On 10/23/2015 08:20 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: My own objection isn't to allowing "fR" or "fbR", it's to allowing the uppercase "F". I also don't understand why we can't say "if 'f' is part of a string prefix, it

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-26 Thread francismb
>> Sometimes order matters, and sometimes it does not. If the order does >> not have an impact on the final code, it does not matter, and making >> us have to remember an order that does not matter is a waste. > > Order that matters? You must be kidding. That would turn different types > of

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-26 Thread Martin Panter
On 26 October 2015 at 19:43, MRAB wrote: > On 2015-10-26 18:45, Sven R. Kunze wrote: >> >> On 26.10.2015 16:22, Ethan Furman wrote: >>> >>> On 10/23/2015 08:20 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: My own objection isn't to allowing "fR" or "fbR", it's to allowing the

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-26 Thread Sven R. Kunze
On 26.10.2015 16:22, Ethan Furman wrote: On 10/23/2015 08:20 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: My own objection isn't to allowing "fR" or "fbR", it's to allowing the uppercase "F". I also don't understand why we can't say "if 'f' is part of a string prefix, it must be first". Sometimes order matters,

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-26 Thread Ethan Furman
On 10/23/2015 08:20 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 22 October 2015 at 19:12, Eric V. Smith wrote: On 10/22/2015 1:09 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: But it'd be weird now if fR worked but fbR didn't. Or bR (which is currently allowed) but not fbR in the future. My own objection isn't to allowing

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-22 Thread Sven R. Kunze
Yeah, that would be weird. Really? That's ridiculous. We don't allow DEF or DeF for function definitions either. So, I don't see any value in it. IMHO, It's time for a clean up again. On 22.10.2015 19:09, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: But it'd be weird now if fR worked but fbR didn't. On Thu, Oct

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-22 Thread Eric V. Smith
On 10/22/2015 1:09 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: > But it'd be weird now if fR worked but fbR didn't. Or bR (which is currently allowed) but not fbR in the future. Eric. > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Sven R. Kunze > wrote: > > On 22.10.2015

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-22 Thread Eric V. Smith
On 10/21/2015 10:57 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: > It mentions fr'...' as a formatted raw string but doesn't say anything > about rf'...'. Right now, in implementing PEP 498 support in Howl > (https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/pull/118 and >

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-22 Thread Ryan Gonzalez
Ah, I missed that part. Sorry! :/ On October 22, 2015 7:27:41 AM CDT, "Eric V. Smith" wrote: >On 10/22/2015 7:32 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote: >> On 10/21/2015 10:57 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: >>> It mentions fr'...' as a formatted raw string but doesn't say >anything >>> about

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-22 Thread Eric V. Smith
On 10/22/2015 7:32 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote: > On 10/21/2015 10:57 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: >> It mentions fr'...' as a formatted raw string but doesn't say anything >> about rf'...'. Right now, in implementing PEP 498 support in Howl >> (https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/pull/118 and >>

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-22 Thread Sven R. Kunze
On 22.10.2015 13:32, Eric V. Smith wrote: ['B', 'BF', 'BFR', 'BFr', 'BR', 'BRF', 'BRf', 'Bf', 'BfR', 'Bfr', 'Br', 'BrF', 'Brf', 'F', 'FB', 'FBR', 'FBr', 'FR', 'FRB', 'FRb', 'Fb', 'FbR', 'Fbr', 'Fr', 'FrB', 'Frb', 'R', 'RB', 'RBF', 'RBf', 'RF', 'RFB', 'RFb', 'Rb', 'RbF', 'Rbf', 'Rf', 'RfB',

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-22 Thread Ryan Gonzalez
On October 22, 2015 11:10:48 AM CDT, "Sven R. Kunze" wrote: >On 22.10.2015 13:32, Eric V. Smith wrote: >> ['B', 'BF', 'BFR', 'BFr', 'BR', 'BRF', 'BRf', 'Bf', 'BfR', 'Bfr', >'Br', >> 'BrF', 'Brf', 'F', 'FB', 'FBR', 'FBr', 'FR', 'FRB', 'FRb', 'Fb', >'FbR', >> 'Fbr', 'Fr', 'FrB',

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-22 Thread Sven R. Kunze
On 22.10.2015 18:17, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: anything about it. 'FbR', really? Why not disallowing them? I for one could live with all-lower-case AND a predefined order. Well, now it's backwards-compatibility. Huh? There are no fb strings yet. Best, Sven

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-22 Thread Ryan Gonzalez
But it'd be weird now if fR worked but fbR didn't. On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote: > On 22.10.2015 18:17, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: > >> >>> anything about it. 'FbR', really? >>> Why not disallowing them? >>> >>> I for one could live with all-lower-case

[Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?

2015-10-21 Thread Ryan Gonzalez
It mentions fr'...' as a formatted raw string but doesn't say anything about rf'...'. Right now, in implementing PEP 498 support in Howl (https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/pull/118 and