On 21/11/2012 23:21, Joshua Landau wrote:
On 21 November 2012 22:17, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Colin J. Williams <c...@ncf.ca> wrote:
On 20/11/2012 4:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
To the OP: jmf has an unnatural hatred of Python 3.3 and PEP 393
strings. Take no notice; the rest of the world sees this as a huge
advantage. Python is now in a VERY small group of languages (I'm aware
of just one other) that have absolutely proper Unicode handling *and*
efficient string handling.
ChrisA
It's interesting to see that someone else finds the format function to
be a
pain. Perhaps the problem lies with the documentation.
Hang on, what? I'm not sure where the format function comes in. I was
referring to the underlying representation.
That said, though, I'm just glad that %-formatting is staying. It's an
extremely expressive string formatting method, and exists in many
languages (thanks to C's heritage). Pike's version is insanely
powerful, Python's is more like C's, but all three are compact and
convenient.
str.format(), on the other hand, is flexible. It strikes me as rather
more complicated than a string formatting function needs to be, but
that may be a cost of its flexibility.
Since we've decided to derail the conversation...
"{}".format() is a blessing an "" % () should go. "%" has no relevance to
strings, is hard to "get" and has an appalling* syntax. Having two syntaxes
just makes things less obvious, and the right choice rarer.
str.format is also really easy. I don't understand what makes you disagree.
Easy vs easier:
"%s %s %s" % (1, 2, 3)
'1 2 3'
"{} {} {}".format(1, 2, 3)
'1 2 3'
Easy vs easier:
"You have %(spam)s spam and %(eggs)s eggs!" % {"spam": 43, "eggs": 120}
'You have 43 spam and 120 eggs!'
"You have {spam} spam and {eggs} eggs!".format(spam=43, eggs=120)
<OR>
"You have {spam} spam and {eggs} eggs!".format(**{"spam": 43, "eggs":
120})
'You have 43 spam and 120 eggs!'
Eh...? vs easy:
"Thing %s has state %+o!" % ("#432", 14)
'Thing #432 has state +16!
"Thing {} has state {:+o}!".format("#432", 14)
'Thing #432 has state +16!'
*Additionally*, a = str.format is much *better* than a = str.__mod__.
I have a piece of code like this:
"{fuscia}{{category__name}}/{reset}{{name}} {green}{{version}}{reset}:\n
{{description}}"
Which *would* have looked like this:
"%(fuscia)s%%(category__name)s/%(reset)s%%(name)s
%(green)s%%(version)s%(reset)s:\n %%(description)s"
Which would have parsed to something like:
'FUSCIA{category__name}/RESET{name} GREEN{version}RESET:\n {description}'
and
'FUSCIA%(category__name)s/RESET%(name)s GREEN%(version)sRESET:\n
%(description)s'
Can you seriously say you don't mind the "%(name)s"s in this?
* "A {} is in the {}" vs "A %s is in the %s"?
C %f style formatting is never going to go so live with it. I know as I
asked maybe two years ago. On Python-dev. I think.
--
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
