On 7/21/2020 4:59 PM, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
On 21/07/2020 19:54, Alex Hall wrote:
It should do the import for you. As was proposed:
```
print(f"My dict: {d!p}")
```
should be equivalent to
```
import pprint
print(f"My dict: {pprint.pformat(d)}")
You're right, I didn't read it carefully enough.
```
The import should happen in the same scope. Modifying the global
namespace could be confusing.
You're right again. It could still break code like this:
from pprint import pprint
...
def myfunc():
# Code modified to use !p here
pprint(something) # Oops, pprint is now a module, not a function
unless the import could actually be local to the f-string itself, not
the surrounding scope
(perhaps similar to the way a list comprehension is implemented as a
function with its own scope).
I don't totally understand these matters, so I may have got something
wrong.
You don't need to go through globals, locals, etc. You can do the
equivalent of:
>>> import pprint
>>> import sys
>>> pprint = 3
>>> sys.modules['pprint'].pprint('hello')
'hello'
Except that "sys" wouldn't be a local/global, either. But of course you
could still monkeypatch pprint and break this code. There are a million
ways to break code, I wouldn't worry about how the interpreter would get
access to the pprint module. Instead, I'd worry about the more troubling
issues which I raised in an earlier email. Those are the ones that are
likely to stop this proposal.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/TBSKYG5PULPIQGZYA5AEHVJEQUZMV7JU/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
