On 25/02/2012 13:13, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 25/02/2012 05:55, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Mark >> Lawrence<breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> <quote> >>> Quoting the docs http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/stdtypes.html >>> >>> 4.6.2. Old String Formatting Operations >>> >>> Note >>> >>> The formatting operations described here are obsolete and may go away in >>> future versions of Python. Use the new String Formatting in new code. >>> >>> </quote> >>> >>> I think this is daft because all of the code has to be supported for >>> the ten >>> years that MVL has suggested. >> >> Indeed, that note was written before we decided that getting rid of >> "%" formatting altogether would be a bad idea. >> >> It would be better to update it to say something like: >> >> "The formatting operations described here are modelled on C's printf() >> syntax. They only support formatting of certain builtin types, and the >> use of a binary operator means that care may be needed in order to >> format tuples and dictionaries correctly. As the new string formatting >> syntax is more powerful, flexible, extensible and handles tuples and >> dictionaries naturally, it is recommended for new code. However, there >> are no current plans to deprecate printf-style formatting." >> >> Cheers, >> Nick. >> > > That's fine by me, it'll save me changing my own code. I'll put this on > the issue tracker if you want, but after the pressing needs of the bar > and 6 Nations rugby :) > I would raise this on the issue tracker but it won't let me login. Guess I'm not wanted. :( -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.
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