-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stavros Korokithakis wrote:
> Hello,
> is concatenation of adjacent strings a useful feature? So far the only
> use case I've seen is causing me endless hours of debugging when I
> forget the comma in a tuple of strings, like so:
>
> ("first",
> "second"
> "third")
>
> Which then becomes a tuple of two items, instead of three. It would have
> been much better if it produced an error. Is there any good reason that
> this feature exists, or would it be better if it were removed?
- -1. The feature exists to allow adherence to PEP-8, "Limit all lines to
a maximum of 79 characters.", without requiring runtime concatenation
costs. I use it frequently when assembling and testing message strings,
for instance.
Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIlfMR+gerLs4ltQ4RAjc/AJ9QiO4EWMfamHwyRLaZ+cowu8bT9gCbB+/Y
979rSOIrbRs8lYW3T8Kv6WE=
=NSdL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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