Terry Reedy wrote: > On 12/21/2015 9:05 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Chris Angelico wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>> <pointede...@web.de> wrote: >>>> Mark Lawrence wrote: >>>>> On 21/12/2015 07:51, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> Chris Angelico wrote: >>>>>>> But it's been clearly stated that .format is not going to do away >>>>>>> with percent formatting, and all language of "new-style formatting" >>>>>>> has been removed so as not to cause confusion. >>>>>> Wishful thinking, twice. >>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/python/dev/969817 >>>> What is this supposed to be evidence of? >>> Proof that percent formatting isn't planned for deprecation, much less >>> removal. >> Then it would have failed to accomplish that. >> >>> There is strong support for it in certain quarters of python-dev. […] >> There *was*. The referred thread is from 2012-02. It is 2015-12. > > Nothing has changed since except for > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0498/ > already added to 3.6.
Interesting – and disturbing that for lack of deprecation of the other two ways we would then have *three* ways. But irrelevant evidence, again. [I do not understand why that is so hard to understand: In order to substantiate the original statement, it has to be shown *what the statement says*: that it would have been “clearly stated that .format is not going to do away with percent formatting, and all language of "new-style formatting" has been removed so as not to cause confusion.”. Everything and anything short of showing that *fails* to constitute *relevant* evidence for that statement.] > If the 2.7 doc still implies that % -formatting is deprecated, it should > changed as in the 3.x docs. IBTD. What about ,-<https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/> | | […] | There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. ? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
