> From: Guido van Rossum [mailto:guido@python.org] > > > > > There's a lot of empirical evidence that %(name)s is quite error > > > > prone. > > > > > > Perhaps an unadorned %(name) should default to %(name)s? > > Ambiguous, hence even more error-prone. Fair enough. I couldn't off the top of my head think of an ambiguous case, but of course there's '%(thing)s'ly-yours' ... PyChecker2 should *definitely* include checking format strings IMO, irrespective of whether $ formatting gets in. But only as a warning (because of the above case). Tim Delaney
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