FWIW, new patches have been attached to the bug report
(http://bugs.python.org/issue12014), one of which is intended to bring
behavior in line with the documentation, and the other of which is
intended to implement Greg Ewing's proposal to allow only identifiers
(or integers) in the arg_name, attri
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Ben Wolfson wrote:
>
>> If by "item selector" you mean (using the names from the grammar in
>> the docs) the element_index, I don't see why this should be the case;
>> dictionaries can contain non-identified keys, after all.
>
> Of course they c
Ben Wolfson wrote:
If by "item selector" you mean (using the names from the grammar in
the docs) the element_index, I don't see why this should be the case;
dictionaries can contain non-identified keys, after all.
Of course they can, but that's not the point. The point is
that putting arbitrar
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Ben Wolfson wrote:
>>
>> You can't have an internal replacement
>> field in this part of the replacement field, so '{' can always safely
>> be assumed to be Just a Brace and not the start of a replacement
>> field, regardless of whether it's dou
Ben Wolfson wrote:
You can't have an internal replacement
field in this part of the replacement field, so '{' can always safely
be assumed to be Just a Brace and not the start of a replacement
field, regardless of whether it's doubled,
I'm worried that the rules in this area are getting too
com
On 6/11/2011 6:32 AM, Petri Lehtinen wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
[snip]
It seems to me that the intent of the pep and the current doc is that
field_names should match what one would write in code except that quotes
are left off of literal string keys. Which is to say, the brackets []
serve as
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Ben Wolfson wrote:
> To summarise (after both the above post and the discussion on the tracker)
Thanks for the summary!
>
> That would leave us with the following set of rules for name fields:
>
> 1. Numeric
Nick Coghlan wrote:
[snip]
> The rules for name fields would then become:
>
> 1. Numeric fields start with a digit and are terminated by any
> non-numeric character.
>
> 2. An identifier name field is terminated by any one of:
> '}' (terminates the replacement field)
> '!' (terminates ide
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Ben Wolfson wrote:
[snip very thorough analysis]
To summarise (after both the above post and the discussion on the tracker)
The current str.format implementation differs from the documentation
in two ways:
1. It ignores the presence of an unclosed index field wh
