On 02/26/2012 10:13 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Eli Bendersky<eliben at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It would be nice to call it something else than "printf-style >>> formatting". While it is certainly modelled on printf(), knowledge of C >>> or printf is not required to understand %-style formatting, nor even to >>> appreciate it. >> >> >> +1. The section is already titled "old string formatting operations" so if >> this name is acceptable it should be reused. If it's not, it should then be >> consistently changed everywhere. > > I deliberately chose printf-style as being value neutral (whereas > old-style vs new-style carries a heavier recommendation that you > should be using the new one). Sure you don't need to know printf to > understand it, but it needs *some* kind of name, and "printf-style" > acknowledges its roots. Another value-neutral term is "mod-style", > which describes how it is invoked (and I believe we do use that in a > few places already). I've seen "percent-formatting", which is neutral, accurate and doesn't require any previous knowledge. (The new one could be "format-formatting" then, which is a tad awkward. :) Georg
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