RetroSearch Browse

Wed Sep 30 17:22:33 CEST 2009 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-September/092378.html

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:21 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>> I would propose that the format argument gets an argument name,
>> according to the syntax it is written in. For PEP 3101 format,
>> I would call the argument "format" (like the method name of the
>> string type), i.e.
>>
>> logging.Formatter(
>>  format="{asctime} - {name} - {levelname} - {message}")
>>
>> For the % formatting, I suggest "dicttemplate" (assuming that
>> you *have* to use dictionary %(key)s style currently).
>>
>> The positional parameter would also mean dicttemplate, and
>> would be deprecated (eventually requiring a keyword-only
>> parameter).
>
> Although I hate the name 'dicttemplate', this seems like the best solution
> to me.  Maybe it's good that 'dicttemplate' is so ugly though so that people
> will naturally prefer 'format' :).  But I like this because there's not
> really any magic, it's explicit, and the decision is made by the coder at
> the call site.  The implementation does not need to guess at all.

Could you comment on what you think we should do when the parameter is
not positional? As I mentioned upthread, in the case of
logging.Formatter, it's already documented as taking the keyword
parameter "fmt", so we'd have to use the name "fmt" for % formatting.

Steve
-- 
Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis?
Did Steve tell you that?
        --- The Hiphopopotamus

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-September/092378.html below:

[Python-Dev] transitioning from % to {} formatting