[Barry]
> > Guido's rules for $-substitutions are really simple:
> >
> > 1. $$ substitutes to just a single $
> >
> > 2. $identifier followed by non-identifier characters gets interpolated
> > with the value of the 'identifier' key in the substitution
> > dictionary.
> >
> > 3. For handling cases where the identifier is followed by identifier
> > characters that aren't part of the key, ${identfier} is equivalent
> > to $identifier.
> >
> > And that's it. For the sake of discussion, forget about where the
> > dictionary for string interpolation comes from.
[MAL]
> Wouldn't it be a lot simpler and more inline with what we
> already have, if we'd use '%' as escape characters ?
>
> 1. %% becomes %
>
> 2. %ident maps to %(ident)s as we have it now
>
> 3. %{ident} maps to %(ident)s
>
> 4. %(ident)s continues to have the same semantics as
> before
That's not simpler, it's more complicated. Any tool dealing with
these will have to understand all the rules.
The point of switching to $ is twofold: (1) it avoids confusion with
the old %-based syntax (which can continue to exist for different
purposes), (2) it is familiar to people who have seen substitution in
other languages. $ is nearly universal (Perl, Tcl, Ruby, shell, etc.)
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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