Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PEP 0498: f-Strings #24

Open
hut8 opened this issue Oct 4, 2015 · 11 comments
Open

PEP 0498: f-Strings #24

hut8 opened this issue Oct 4, 2015 · 11 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@hut8
Copy link

hut8 commented Oct 4, 2015

This got accepted a bit ago!

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0498/

It's for 3.6, so we have some time since that pre-release isn't out yet.

@ulope ulope added the content label Oct 4, 2015
@ulope
Copy link
Owner

ulope commented Oct 4, 2015

Thanks for the reminder. We are aware of it and will have to think how best to integrate it into the current structure.

@zerok
Copy link
Collaborator

zerok commented Oct 6, 2015

If we don't completely refactor the whole system, introducing a new _result variable and check should end up being pretty straight forward. We will just have to provide some additional documentation around that in order to prevent 1000 reports that something of that format isn't working for people trying it in Python 3.4, for instance.

@ulope ulope changed the title PEP 0498 PEP 0498: f-Strings Apr 15, 2016
@ulope ulope added this to the 2.0 milestone Oct 12, 2016
@Chris-May
Copy link

Would it be as "simple" as changing "old" to "python2", "new" to "python3", and adding "python3.6"?

Or could it be re-worded to be more explicit with the strategy names:
"old" could stay the same or become "percent-formatted"
"new" becomes "Format method"
and "String literal" or "Format string" gets added?

@zerok
Copy link
Collaborator

zerok commented Dec 12, 2016

@Chris-May @ulope started working on a rewrite of the whole application using Lektor. This should allow us to become far more flexible here as every formatting will ideally get its own content block :) I'm not sure about a timeline but during the last week of December I definitely plan to help there a bit ;)

@ddevault
Copy link

You should prioritize this or add a warning to the page, as it stands now the site is quickly becoming misinformation.

@ulope
Copy link
Owner

ulope commented Jul 24, 2017

@SirCmpwn I'm quite aware that f-String documentation needs to be added. However we do this in our spare time. So we'll get to it when we can. Luckily Python 3.6 isn't very widely adopted yet...

@ddevault
Copy link

Should be straightforward to add a notice that the page is outdated, even in your spare time.

@ulope
Copy link
Owner

ulope commented Jul 24, 2017

Calling it outdated just because one feature of the very latest language release is missing would be quite an exaggeration.

@ddevault
Copy link

It's not an exaggeration, it's a fact. This document is literally outdated. The idiomatic way to format strings is now f-strings, and this document should be updated to reflect that and if not, at least should include a warning addressing it.

@ddevault
Copy link

Python 3.6 has been the latest stable version of Python for 7 months now, it's not like this is an experimental feature.

@ulope
Copy link
Owner

ulope commented Jul 24, 2017

Ok you've made your point. We'll get to it when we do. Thanks for your participation.

Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 24, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants