On 1/18/2010 8:01 AM, Colin W. wrote:
On 17-Jan-10 18:27 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:13:48 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
In article<hiv4c6$5l...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
"Colin W."<cjwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17-Jan-10 02:16 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/17/2010 1:55 AM, Brendan Miller wrote:
Is there any difference whatsoever between a raw string beginning
with the captical R or one with the lower case r e.g. r"string" vs
R"string"?
No. Nor is there and difference between the strings created with raw
literals and cooked literals.
"cooked" literal ??
I've never seen it referred to this way in the Python literature, but
"cooked" is a well-known term meaning, "not raw". The usage goes back
decades.
I think the use of "cooked" meaning "not raw" goes back a little bit more
than decades. The verb "to cook" dates from the late 14th century, and
the adjective form "cooked" would follow soon after. The use of "cooked"
to mean manipulated (as in "cooking the books") comes from the 1630s.
Extending it to strings (as in raw versus cooked strings) is an obvious
extension.
Yes, I should have cottoned on, but perhaps "... between the strings,
raw and other." would have conveyed the idea.
I intentionally did not say that because Python only has one type of
string object (in 3.x), not raw and normal. Python *code* has string
literals optionally prefixed with 'r' (or 'R', which I did not know
before) to suppress the normal processing that reduces escape sequences
to one char.
The term 'cooked' versus 'raw' was used in Unixland at least through the
1980s. For instance, the input stream from a terminal could be cooked or
left raw. I presume that is whence came Python's use of 'raw', with much
the same meaning.
Terry Jan Reedy
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
