Guido van Rossum wrote: > >... > > Hm, then the directive would syntactically have to *precede* the > docstring. It makes sense for the directive to precede the docstring because the directive should be able to change the definition of the docstring! > That currently doesn't work -- the docstring may only be > preceded by blank lines and comments. Lots of tools for processing > docstrings already have this built into them. The directive statement is inherently a backwards incompatible extension. It is a grammar change. Many tools sniff out the docstring from the loaded module anyhow. > Is it worth breaking > them so that editors can remain stupid? I would say that the more important consideration is that it just makes sense to figure out what encoding you are using before you start processing strings! -- Take a recipe. Leave a recipe. Python Cookbook! http://www.ActiveState.com/pythoncookbook
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4