[Alex Martelli] > If %(name)s is to be deprecated moving towards Python-3000 (surely it > can't be _removed_ before then), $-formatting needs a very rich feature > set; otherwise it can't _replace_ %-formatting. [...] The "transition" > period will thus inevitably offer different ways to perform the same > tasks [...] the old way and the new way MUST both work together for a > good while to allow migration. [Moore, Paul] > I feel that the existing % formatting operator cannot realistically > be removed. I too, like Alex and Paul, have a hard time believing that `%' will effectively fade out in favour of `$'. As a few people tried to stress out (Alex did very well with his anecdote), changes in Python are welcome when they add real new capabilities, but they are less welcome when they merely add diversity over old substance: the language is then hurt each time, loosing bits of simplicity (and even legibility, through the development of Python subsets in user habits). Each individual loss may be seen as insignificant when discussed separately[1], but when the pace of change is high, the losses accumulate, especially if the cleanup does not occur. This is why any change in current string interpolation should be crafted so it fits _very_ naturally with what already exists, and does not look like another feature patched over other features. A forever "transition" period between two interpolation paradigms, foreign to one another, might give exactly that bad impression. -------------------- [1] This is one of the drawback of the PEP system. By concentrating on individual features, we loose the vision of all features taken together. Only Guido has a global vision. :-) -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard
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