[Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid?
Nick Coghlan
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Fri Oct 23 11:20:45 EDT 2015
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Fri Oct 23 11:20:45 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 ]
On 22 October 2015 at 19:12, Eric V. Smith <eric at trueblade.com> wrote: > On 10/22/2015 1:09 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: >> But it'd be weird now if fR worked but fbR didn't. > > Or bR (which is currently allowed) but not fbR in the future. My own objection isn't to allowing "fR" or "fbR", it's to allowing the uppercase "F". I also don't understand why we can't say "if 'f' is part of a string prefix, it must be first". That would mean we kept the current 14 combinations: ['B', 'BR', 'Br', 'R', 'RB', 'Rb', 'U', 'b', 'bR', 'br', 'r', 'rB', 'rb', 'u'] And added only 13 more possibilities, being a lowercase 'f' prefix on its own, and as a prefix for the various b/r combinations: ['fB', 'fBR', 'fBr', 'fR', 'fRB', 'fRb', 'fb', 'fbR', 'fbr', 'fr', 'frB', 'frb'] I don't think it would ever be worth the compatibility break to require lowercase for 'rbu', or to enforce a particular relative order (although those could be good pylint rules, if they aren't already), but there's no such restrictions for the new 'f' prefix. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- 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