[ python-Bugs-1467929 ] %-formatting and dicts

Fri Jan 12 15:57:28 CET 2007

Bugs item #1467929, was opened at 2006-04-10 15:39
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by akuchling
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1467929&group_id=5470

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Python Interpreter Core
Group: Python 2.5
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 8
Private: No
Submitted By: M.-A. Lemburg (lemburg)
Assigned to: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter)
Summary: %-formatting and dicts

Initial Comment:
This looks like a bug in the way the %-formatting code
works or is it a feature ?

>>> '%s %(a)s' % {'a': 'xyz'}
"{'a': 'xyz'} xyz"

>>> u'%s %(a)s' % {'a': 'xyz'}
u"{'a': 'xyz'} xyz"

Note that both strings and Unicode are affected.

Python 2.3 and 2.4 also show this behavior.

I would have expected an exception or the %-formatter
simply ignoring the first %s.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling)
Date: 2007-01-12 09:57

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=11375
Originator: NO

The patch shouldn't be applied as it stands, though, because it's not
complete; similiar changes need to be made to the Unicode type, for a
start.

To answer Skip's question: I don't remember the logic of the format code. 
I think the FORMAT_TYPE_UNKNOWN check may be unnecessary; the code could
just always do format_type = _TUPLE, occasionally doing a redundant
assignment (but who cares)?

I don't think I'll have any chance to work on this; PyCon is keeping me
busy, and the mailbox bugs will take priority for me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter)
Date: 2007-01-12 04:10

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=29957
Originator: NO

I'm happy for this to be applied for 2.5.1. I don't have time to do it
myself for a few days, though, so feel free to beat me to it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Georg Brandl (gbrandl)
Date: 2006-08-19 01:25

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=849994

I'd say before 2.5 final...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: M.-A. Lemburg (lemburg)
Date: 2006-08-18 18:17

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=38388

Should this patch be applied to the 2.5 branch ?

And if so, before or after the release of 2.5 ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Jim Jewett (jimjjewett)
Date: 2006-08-18 18:01

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=764593

Just a bit of encouragement for checking consistency like 
this; the explicit error message would have helped with a 
mistake I made earlier today.  For one of several keys, I 
mistyped it as "(%key)s", and a message about "not enough 
values" just didn't make sense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: M.-A. Lemburg (lemburg)
Date: 2006-08-04 09:26

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=38388

The patch looks OK.

I'd make it a TypeError and use "cannot use positional and
named formatting parameters at the same time" as message.

Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Skip Montanaro (montanaro)
Date: 2006-08-04 09:21

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=44345

Looks okay to me, though why is the FORMAT_TYPE_UNKNOWN test
necessary in the second case but not the first?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling)
Date: 2006-07-25 08:35

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=11375

So, what should '%s' % {} do?  Should it be 1) '{}' or 2) an
error because the argument is a mapping but the format
specifier doesn't have a '(key)'?

I've attached a draft patch that fixes stringobject.c; if
the approach is deemed OK, I'll apply it to unicodeobject.c,
too.  PyString_Format() records the type of argument being
processed (a tuple or a mapping) and raises ValueError if
you mix them, at the cost of two extra comparisons for each
format specifier processed.  This preserves the current
behaviour of '%s' % dictionary.

Questions: 1) is the approach reasonably clear?  2) are the
additional two comparisons unacceptably slow?  3) Is
ValueError the right exception?  4) can someone come up with
a better exception message than "both keyed and unkeyed
format specifiers used"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2006-07-24 16:07

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

IMO, it's correct to break backwards compatibility, as the
current behaviour clearly violates the spec; I'm not sure
whether it's good to break the behaviour *now* (i.e. with no
further betas before the release of 2.5).

Deferring to the release manager.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Georg Brandl (gbrandl)
Date: 2006-07-24 09:37

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=849994

The library ref specifies that if a dict is supplied, the
format specifiers MUST include a mapping key, so the right
thing to do would be to raise an exception.

Is it worth breaking backwards compatibility, Martin?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Hasan Diwan (hdiwan650)
Date: 2006-04-14 04:33

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=1185570

It looks as though it's a feature... The first %s will print
the whole dictionary as a string, the second, only that
value looked up by the key.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1467929&group_id=5470