Stavros Korokithakis wrote:
> Hmm, thanks, although I don't see why it was rejected, since it seems to
> me that by using the addition operator or triple-quoting all the use
> cases would become clearer and not significantly harder to write, while
> the (often silent) errors would not happen any more.
>
> The PEP only mentions that "the feature to be removed isn't all that
> harmful, and there are some use cases that would become harder", but I'm
> not sure that the "harder use cases" (which ones?) justify the error
> potential.
As I recall, removing implicit string concatenation simply resulted in
too much code breakage for not enough benefit. There is also the
minor(!) issue of breaking il8n tools that understand implicit string
concatenation but not string addition.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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