On 01/17/2014 09:13 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 01/17/2014 11:58 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jan 17, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
I would rephrase it to "switch to %-formatting for bytes usage for
their common code base".
-1. %-formatting is so neanderthal. :)
Very much so, which is why I'm willing to let it be bastardized in
Python 3.5 for the sake of porting but not bytes.format(). =) I'm
keeping format() clean for my nieces and nephew to use; they can just
turn their nose up at %-formatting when they are old enough to program.
Given the problems with implementing it, I'm more than willing to drop
bytes.format() from PEP 461 (not that it's my PEP). But if we think that
%-formatting is neanderthal and will get dropped in the Python 4000
timeframe
I hope not!
(that is, someday in the far future), then I think we should
have some advice to give to people who are writing new 3.x code for the
non-porting use-cases addressed by the PEP. I'm specifically thinking of
new code that wants to format some bytes for an on-the-wire ascii-like
protocol.
%-interpolation handles this use case well, format does not.
Is it:
b'Content-Length: ' + str(47).encode('ascii')
or
b'Content-Length: {}.format(str(47).encode('ascii'))
or something better?
Ew. Neither of those look better than
b'Content-Length: %d' % 47
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
