Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> added the comment:
+1 from me. It's something I'd find useful, and it's a natural extension of the
f-string syntax.
> I can't decide if I'm going to allow a format specifier.
The only useful interpretation IMO would be for {expr!d:fmt} to expand to
expr={expr:fmt}. If you're not willing to include that in the initial
implementation, I'd rather see :fmt reserved for now, with the intention that
it's implemented like this at a later date. Having :fmt apply to the whole
string including the "expr=" bit would be basically useless to me. For a
motivating example, consider f"{datetime.now()!d:%Y-%m-%d}", which is something
I could easily imagine using.
Steven D'Aprano:
> I think there are enough use-cases for having access to
> expressions, complete with source code, as first-class
> values to make this a general feature of the language
> and not baked into f-strings. I have a proto-PEP
> discussing this.
I have no problem with something like this, but I don't think it precludes the
proposed f-string extension. The use cases are sufficiently different that I'd
expect the two features to live happily together - there's no need to block the
f-string extension for a proposal like this.
----------
nosy: +paul.moore
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue36774>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
