Bugs item #1467929, was opened at 2006-04-10 15:39
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by akuchling
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1467929&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Python Interpreter Core
Group: Python 2.5
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 8
Private: No
Submitted By: M.-A. Lemburg (lemburg)
Assigned to: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter)
Summary: %-formatting and dicts
Initial Comment:
This looks like a bug in the way the %-formatting code
works or is it a feature ?
>>> '%s %(a)s' % {'a': 'xyz'}
"{'a': 'xyz'} xyz"
>>> u'%s %(a)s' % {'a': 'xyz'}
u"{'a': 'xyz'} xyz"
Note that both strings and Unicode are affected.
Python 2.3 and 2.4 also show this behavior.
I would have expected an exception or the %-formatter
simply ignoring the first %s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling)
Date: 2007-01-12 09:57
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=11375
Originator: NO
The patch shouldn't be applied as it stands, though, because it's not
complete; similiar changes need to be made to the Unicode type, for a
start.
To answer Skip's question: I don't remember the logic of the format code.
I think the FORMAT_TYPE_UNKNOWN check may be unnecessary; the code could
just always do format_type = _TUPLE, occasionally doing a redundant
assignment (but who cares)?
I don't think I'll have any chance to work on this; PyCon is keeping me
busy, and the mailbox bugs will take priority for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter)
Date: 2007-01-12 04:10
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=29957
Originator: NO
I'm happy for this to be applied for 2.5.1. I don't have time to do it
myself for a few days, though, so feel free to beat me to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Georg Brandl (gbrandl)
Date: 2006-08-19 01:25
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=849994
I'd say before 2.5 final...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: M.-A. Lemburg (lemburg)
Date: 2006-08-18 18:17
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=38388
Should this patch be applied to the 2.5 branch ?
And if so, before or after the release of 2.5 ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jim Jewett (jimjjewett)
Date: 2006-08-18 18:01
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=764593
Just a bit of encouragement for checking consistency like
this; the explicit error message would have helped with a
mistake I made earlier today. For one of several keys, I
mistyped it as "(%key)s", and a message about "not enough
values" just didn't make sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: M.-A. Lemburg (lemburg)
Date: 2006-08-04 09:26
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=38388
The patch looks OK.
I'd make it a TypeError and use "cannot use positional and
named formatting parameters at the same time" as message.
Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Skip Montanaro (montanaro)
Date: 2006-08-04 09:21
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=44345
Looks okay to me, though why is the FORMAT_TYPE_UNKNOWN test
necessary in the second case but not the first?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling)
Date: 2006-07-25 08:35
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=11375
So, what should '%s' % {} do? Should it be 1) '{}' or 2) an
error because the argument is a mapping but the format
specifier doesn't have a '(key)'?
I've attached a draft patch that fixes stringobject.c; if
the approach is deemed OK, I'll apply it to unicodeobject.c,
too. PyString_Format() records the type of argument being
processed (a tuple or a mapping) and raises ValueError if
you mix them, at the cost of two extra comparisons for each
format specifier processed. This preserves the current
behaviour of '%s' % dictionary.
Questions: 1) is the approach reasonably clear? 2) are the
additional two comparisons unacceptably slow? 3) Is
ValueError the right exception? 4) can someone come up with
a better exception message than "both keyed and unkeyed
format specifiers used"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2006-07-24 16:07
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=21627
IMO, it's correct to break backwards compatibility, as the
current behaviour clearly violates the spec; I'm not sure
whether it's good to break the behaviour *now* (i.e. with no
further betas before the release of 2.5).
Deferring to the release manager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Georg Brandl (gbrandl)
Date: 2006-07-24 09:37
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=849994
The library ref specifies that if a dict is supplied, the
format specifiers MUST include a mapping key, so the right
thing to do would be to raise an exception.
Is it worth breaking backwards compatibility, Martin?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Hasan Diwan (hdiwan650)
Date: 2006-04-14 04:33
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1185570
It looks as though it's a feature... The first %s will print
the whole dictionary as a string, the second, only that
value looked up by the key.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1467929&group_id=5470
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
