Yet another Python textbook

[Joshua Landau]

On 21 November 2012 22:17, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Colin J. Williams <cjw at ncf.ca> wrote:
> > On 20/11/2012 4:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> To the OP: jmf has an unnatural hatred of Python 3.3 and PEP 393
> >> strings. Take no notice; the rest of the world sees this as a huge
> >> advantage. Python is now in a VERY small group of languages (I'm aware
> >> of just one other) that have absolutely proper Unicode handling *and*
> >> efficient string handling.
> >>
> >> ChrisA
> >>
> > It's interesting to see that someone else finds the format function to
> be a
> > pain.  Perhaps the problem lies with the documentation.
>
> Hang on, what? I'm not sure where the format function comes in. I was
> referring to the underlying representation.
>
> That said, though, I'm just glad that %-formatting is staying. It's an
> extremely expressive string formatting method, and exists in many
> languages (thanks to C's heritage). Pike's version is insanely
> powerful, Python's is more like C's, but all three are compact and
> convenient.
>
> str.format(), on the other hand, is flexible. It strikes me as rather
> more complicated than a string formatting function needs to be, but
> that may be a cost of its flexibility.
>

Since we've decided to derail the conversation...

"{}".format() is a blessing an "" % () should go. "%" has no relevance to
strings, is hard to "get" and has an appalling* syntax. Having two syntaxes
just makes things less obvious, and the right choice rarer.

str.format is also really easy. I don't understand what makes you disagree.

Easy vs easier:

>>> "%s %s %s" % (1, 2, 3)
'1 2 3'

>>> "{} {} {}".format(1, 2, 3)
'1 2 3'

Easy vs easier:

>>> "You have %(spam)s spam and %(eggs)s eggs!" % {"spam": 43, "eggs": 120}
'You have 43 spam and 120 eggs!'

>>> "You have {spam} spam and {eggs} eggs!".format(spam=43, eggs=120)
<OR>
>>> "You have {spam} spam and {eggs} eggs!".format(**{"spam": 43, "eggs":
120})
'You have 43 spam and 120 eggs!'

Eh...? vs easy:

>>> "Thing %s has state %+o!" % ("#432", 14)
'Thing #432 has state +16!

>>> "Thing {} has state {:+o}!".format("#432", 14)
'Thing #432 has state +16!'

*Additionally*, a = str.format is much *better* than a = str.__mod__.

I have a piece of code like this:
"{fuscia}{{category__name}}/{reset}{{name}} {green}{{version}}{reset}:\n
 {{description}}"

Which *would* have looked like this:
"%(fuscia)s%%(category__name)s/%(reset)s%%(name)s
%(green)s%%(version)s%(reset)s:\n    %%(description)s"

Which would have parsed to something like:
'FUSCIA{category__name}/RESET{name} GREEN{version}RESET:\n    {description}'
and
'FUSCIA%(category__name)s/RESET%(name)s GREEN%(version)sRESET:\n
 %(description)s'

Can you seriously say you don't mind the "%(name)s"s in this?

* "A {} is in the {}" vs "A %s is in the %s"?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20121121/e751ff3c/attachment.html>