Matthias Bussonnier <bussonniermatth...@gmail.com> added the comment:
I've tried a bit PR 13455, I find this way nicer than textwrap.dedent(...),
though I wonder if f-string readability (and expected behavior?) might suffer a
tiny bit with the order of formatting the f-string vs dedenting.
In the following it is clear that dedent is after formatting:
>>> dedent(f" {stuff}")
It might be unclear for the following especially if `.dedent()` get sold as
zero-overhead at compile time.
>>> f" {stuff}".dedent()
Could it be made clearer with the peephole optimiser (and tested, I don't
believe it is now), that dedent applies after-formatting ?
Alternative modifications/suggestions/notes:
- I can also see how having dedent applied **before** formatting with
f-string could be useful or less surprising ( a d"" prefix could do that...
just wondering what your actual goal is).
- Is this a supposed to deprecating textwrap.dedent ? Duck-typing and stuff,
could textwrap.dedent work on non-str things and the current implementation not
( it assumes the `.dedent()` method exists) and thus be backward-incompatible ?
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue36906>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
