I'm with Steven D`Aprano here. Implicit string concat, in my experience, is something clear, concise and convenient.
I've had a bug because of it only once or twice during my whole career, and not only that "occasional" bug would have occurred either way because of a missing comma or plus sign, but it saves the trouble of having to add more symbols which usually means less surface area for bugs. If you feel it affects you all so often, I would totally understand the addition of that feature in a linter, but not endorsed by the python community in any way, and with defaults probably set to disabled. I wouldn't want to add any superfluous symbols to my otherwise (at least in my opinion) cleaner code. All in all, -1 from me. On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:41 AM Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > Carl Meyer wrote: > > With this rule the only missing-comma that can slip through is when > > you've forgotten _all_ the intervening commas in your sequence of > > strings. That's much less likely. > > Not so unlikely when the argument list is of length 2. > > -- > Greg > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
