[Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?
Ryan Gonzalez
rymg19 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 22 10:34:59 EDT 2015
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Thu Oct 22 10:34:59 EDT 2015
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ah, I missed that part. Sorry! :/ On October 22, 2015 7:27:41 AM CDT, "Eric V. Smith" <eric at trueblade.com> wrote: >On 10/22/2015 7:32 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote: >> On 10/21/2015 10:57 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: >>> It mentions fr'...' as a formatted raw string but doesn't say >anything >>> about rf'...'. Right now, in implementing PEP 498 support in Howl >>> (https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/pull/118 and >>> >https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/commit/1e577da89efc1c1de780634b531f64346cf586d6#diff-851d9b84896270cc7e3bbea3014007a5R86), >>> I assumed both were valid. Should the PEP be more specific? >> >> Yes, I'll add some wording. > >Now that I check, in the Specification section, the PEP already says >"'f' may be combined with 'r', in either order, to produce raw f-string >literals". So I think this case is covered, no? > >Eric. -- Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20151022/808bc5c9/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list