Terry Reedy wrote: > Ron Adam wrote: >> >> >> Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> Michael Foord wrote: >>> >>>> Don't we have a pretty-print API - and isn't it spelled __str__ ? >>> >>> Not really. If it were as simple as calling str(obj), there would be >>> no need for the pprint module. >> >> I agree. And when I want to use pprint, there are usually additional >> output formatting requirements I need that isn't a "one size fits all" >> type of problem. I don't see how you can have a standard interface (like __pprint__), and have additional, per-object formatting parameters. But that's beside the point, I don't like __pprint__ in any event. Too special. > Like others, I am wary of over-expanding the list of special methods. > Perhap format strings could have a fourth conversion specifier, !p > (pretty) in addition to !s, !r, and !a. What would format() do with "!p"? With "!s", it calls str(o), with "!r", it calls repr(o). "!p" could call o.__pprint__(), but that's the special method you're trying to avoid! (I don't recall if I added "!a", and a machine that would know isn't available to me just now.) Eric.
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