On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Yingjie Lan <lany...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe non of the other three alternatives are as terse and readable.
> We've got template based, formatting with dict, formatting with tuple.
> They all require the coder extra effort:
>
> Both template based and dict-based formatting require writing the
> identifier three times:
>
>>>> name = 'Peter'
>>>> "Are you %(name)s"%{'name':name}
>
> If dynamic string is used:
>>>> "Are you $name$?"Yes, it's more compact. But it's also more magic. However, there's an alternative that's almost as compact. The only requirement is that you use a two-character token instead of your dollar sign: a double-quote and a plus. >>> "Are you "+name+"?" That allows arbitrary expressions and everything. > Of course, the old C style way: > >>>> "Are you %s?"%name > > Almost as terse, but not as readable, especially > when there are many parts to substitute -- > the coder and reader need to be careful > to make sure the sequence is correct. I quite like this notation, personally. It's convenient, and is supported (with variants) in quite a few C-derived languages (and, in spite of the massive syntactic differences, Python does have C heritage). > Why the Python community is so > hostile to new things now? > Python has merits, > but it is far from being perfect. Hey now, no need to get defensive :) Thing is, it's up to you to demonstrate that your proposal justifies itself. You're proposing to create a massive backward-compatibility issue, so you need to prove that your new way of formatting strings is sufficiently awesome to be able to say "Well, you need Python 3.4+ to use this". ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
