4 ms·
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Hoping for a decision from the core team – having both f"" and .format is a pretty clear
by rshaban 11y ago
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Hoping for a decision from the core team – having both f"" and .format is a pretty clear deviation from this principle.
- noobermin 11y agoWell, having both % and .format was already a clear deviation from it.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- btmiller 11y agoThough I think the communication has been pretty clear that developers should stop using % formatting in favor of .format when moving to Python 3. Not so much a deviation, just a migration. Now that there's another alternative, there definitely needs to be some clear communication about what's going to be idiomatic going forward.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- warbiscuit 11y agoExcept that they went and made .format() useless for bytes... which made everyone have to hang on to % for both 2/3 compatibility cases, and for all the cases where bytes templates were actually needed (all kinda of lowlevel wire protocols and file storage formats).