Quoth Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au>:
> Whether using % or format(), I don't see the need to change the code,
> only the strings.
>
> Using positional arguments is not really that different:
>
> "{0} {1}".format("dead", "parrot")
> "{0} {1}".format("perroquet", "mort")
This should be something like:
_("{0} {1}").format(_("dead"), _("parrot"))
where il8n would substitute the template "{1} {0}" when doing French.
> versus:
>
> "%s %s" % ("dead", "parrot")
> "%s %s" % ("perroquet", "mort")
>
> In this case, the template on the left remains the same, you just have to
> reorder the string arguments on the right. Clearly less satisfactory than
> the solution using keyword substitution, but whatever solution you pick,
> I don't see any advantage to format() over % formatting. Can you show an
> example?
Not less satisfactory, but rather unworkable. You can't do proper il8n
with %s formatting, since there is no way for the il8n machinery to
reorder the argument tuple. It can only translate the template string.
So when doing il8n, the {} syntax wins out for brevity over the equivalent
% syntax (%s(somename)s).
Not that brevity is that important an argument. The new system is just
so much more flexible than the old. As someone else said, the design
is beautiful :) I have a couple thousand lines of python code I wrote
a while back to layer on a system with this kind of flexibility...I was
shocked and pleased when I saw the PEP, since it echoed so many of the
ideas I had implemented in that code, plus more. And all done better
of course :)
--RDM
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
