Nick Coghlan wrote: > Greg Ewing wrote: >> Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >>> - remove support for passing a single value to a format string >>> without wrapping it in an iterable first >> >> But won't that clobber a large number of the simple >> use cases that you want to keep %-formatting for? > > Note the part of the proposal that allows *any* iterable on the right > hand side rather than the current insistence on a tuple. So the > single-value use cases can be boxed easily with a list. > > To my mind salvaging %-formatting requires removing the ambiguity over > whether or not the right hand side will be iterated over. > But then this breaks code where iterables are intended to be output using a single %s format specifier, for example. I don't see why this would be regarded as helpful. To avoid breakage I'd rather keep the %-formatting ability as it is, and label it a legacy feature, rather than "salvaging" it. It's going to be too tricky to convert using 2to3 otherwise. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
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