[OT] absolute vs. relative URI

[Rick Johnson]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 11:49:05 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Chris Warrick  wrote:
> > 5. especially old-style %-based string formatting!
> 
> Please. There's nothing wrong with %-style formatting. 

*BALD-FACED-PARTISAN-LIE*! 

If there is *NOTHING* wrong with %formatting then why did we
violate our philosophy of "there should be one way to do
it..." and introduce the string.format() method?

The new string.format() method is not merely *ANOTHER* way
to do the same thing Chris, it's first and foremost a bug-
fix for the limited capabilities of the legacy %formatting.

But string.format() is so much more than a mere bug-fix,
Chris, since it not only offers a richer set of tools, you
can even create your own custom extension of the formatter:
    
    https://docs.python.org/2/library/string.html#string-formatting
    
...try to do all that with %formatting! And lets not forget
that a *FORMAT-METHOD* aligns itself nicely with the wise
philosophy of OOP! (oh boy, i'm going flac for that one from
the OOP hating religious nutters!)

> It's not deprecated, and never will be;

Chris, what do you call a statement that is based on an
un-provable premise? Oh and, GvR told me to tell you that he
wants his time machine back, and if it has even one dent
you're going to be in some serious trouble!

> and it has the advantage of being cross-language
> compatible. I was speaking with a Python student yesterday
> who didn't understand the {} notation, but grokked "%d +
> %d = %d" % (x, y, x+y) instantly, thanks to experience
> with other languages.

So now you finally admit to us that you base your decisions
on emotion and ignore facts. This was something that i had
suspected for some time and i'm glad that you can finally
admit the truth.

So even though string.format() is highly superior to the
legacy %format crap, you will happily ignore the
advancements and cling to your instinctual emotions like the
religious nutters clinging to a bible.

> Use of % formatting is not a bug.

"not a bug"? Another ridiculous judgment! I believe the
description you're looking for is: "is a foolish
consistency".