Home Original page

[Python-Dev] PEP 215 redux: toward a simplified consensus?

M.-A. Lemburg mal@lemburg.com
Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:25:59 +0100 
"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "MAL" == M  <mal@lemburg.com> writes:
> 
>     MAL> 1. %% becomes %
> 
>     MAL> 2. %ident maps to %(ident)s as we have it now
> 
>     MAL> 3. %{ident} maps to %(ident)s
> 
>     MAL> 4. %(ident)s continues to have the same semantics as
>     MAL>    before
> 
> What happens to %dogfood or %sickpuppy?  If you're trying to maintain
> backwards compatibility with existing syntax, you can't use %ident
> strings.

That's what I was trying to achieve. The only gripe I sometimes
have with '%(ident)s' is that users forget the 's' behind 
'%(ident)'; I'd be ok with dropping 2. and only adding 3.

Whatever you do, just please don't mix the old and new 
semantics...

   'Joe has $ %(a)5.2f in his pocket.' % locals()

is perfectly valid now and should continue to be valid.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH
______________________________________________________________________
Company & Consulting:                           http://www.egenix.com/
Python Software:                   http://www.egenix.com/files/python/