Re: [Python-ideas] f-string literals by default?

05.12.17 23:22, Joseph Jevnik пише: This would break code that uses str.format everywhere for very little benefit. And many regular expressions. And string.Template patterns. And docstrings (silently). And ast.literal_eval, shelve, doctest. ___

Re: [Python-ideas] f-string literals by default?

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote: > One more big NO here - > strings are _data_ not code - this little fact had made > Python easier to learn for decades. > If you need interpolation, and therefore, code that is run in > the context the string is

Re: [Python-ideas] f-string literals by default?

On 2017-12-05, Joseph Jevnik wrote: > This would break code that uses str.format everywhere for very > little benefit. That is a very strong reason not to do it. I think we can end this thread. Thanks. ___ Python-ideas mailing list

Re: [Python-ideas] f-string literals by default?

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > I think most people who have tried f-strings have found them handy. > Could we transition to making default string literal into an > f-string? I think there is a smooth migration path. > > f-strings without

Re: [Python-ideas] f-string literals by default?

This would break code that uses str.format everywhere for very little benefit. On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > I think most people who have tried f-strings have found them handy. > Could we transition to making default string literal into

[Python-ideas] f-string literals by default?

I think most people who have tried f-strings have found them handy. Could we transition to making default string literal into an f-string? I think there is a smooth migration path. f-strings without embedded expressions already compile to the same bytecode as normal string literals. I.e. no