Fredrik writes:
> - Consider changing the ${} to accept arbitrary patterns, instead of
> just Python-style identifiers. \${([^}]+)} should do the trick.
+1
And hey, I'd be +1 on releasing a less-simple template that allowed
arbitrary Python expressions (but no '}' characters) instead of just
identifiers. But that's another issue -- and my liking it doesn't
detract from my liking SIMPLE templates too.
As Barry said elsewhere... even if all it does is to replace '%()s'
with '${}' it's still an improvement.
-- Michael Chermside
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