> For one, I do not like seeing `$' as a string prefix in Python, and
> wonder if we could not merely go with `%' as we always did in
> Python. At least, it keeps a kind of clear cut distance between
> Python and Perl. :-)
The $ means "substitution" in so many languages besides Perl that I
wonder where you've been.
> > In addition, the rules for what can follow a % sign are fairly
> > complex, while the usual application rarely needs such complexity.
>
> This premise seems exaggerated to me. `%' as it stands is not that
> complex to understand. Moreover, many of us use `%' formatting a lot,
> so it is not so rare that the current `%' specification is useful.
I quite like the positional % substitution. I think %(...)s was a
mistake -- what we really wanted was ${...}.
> > 1. $$ is an escape; it is replaced with a single $
>
> Let's suppose we stick with `%', the above rule reduces to something
> already known.
>
> > 3. ${identifier} [...]
>
> We could use %{identifier} as meaning `%(identifier)s'. Clean. Simple.
Confusing. The visual difference between () and {} is too small.
> > 2. $identifier [...]
>
> This is where the difficulty lies. Since the PEP already suggests that
> ${identifier} was to be preferred over $identifier, why not just go a bit
> forward, and drop 2. altogether? Or else, how do you justify that using
> it really make things more legible?
Less clutter. Compare
"My name is $name, I live in $country"
to
"My name is ${name}, I live in ${country}"
The {} add nothing but noise. We're copying this from the shell.
--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