Terry Reedy wrote: > "Andrew Durdin" <adurdin at gmail.com> wrote in message > news:59e9fd3a050710202721851037 at mail.gmail.com... >> Very likely. But given the number of times that similar proposals have >> been put forth in the past, it is reasonable to expect that they will >> be brought up again in the future by others, if this is rejected--and >> in that case, these other can simply be pointed to a thorough (but >> rejected) PEP that discusses the proposal and variants and reasons for >> rejection. > > I agree that this would be useful. I also agree with Bob Ippolito that a > new prefex might be better. <plug> Why using a new syntax construct when you can do it with existing features? We do already have str.split(), which is often used to postprocess string literals (in the perl qw() style), why not introduce str.dedent()? Reinhold -- Mail address is perfectly valid!
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