Please don't cross-post as it means anyone replying to your email will now split the conversation as not everyone will be subscribed to all of the mailing lists you sent this to. I have stripped out all but python-dev for my reply. On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 09:47 Philipp A. <flying-sheep@web.de> wrote:
hi, i already posted in python-ideas, but i got no replies, so i’ll post here:
I don't remember specifically seeing any email on this. Do you have a link to your post from the python-ideas archive showing your email actually made it to the list?
in essence i think interpreting escape sequences in f-literals is a *very* bad idea, mainly because i think it’s fundamental that syntax highlighters can highlight code as code.
I believe you're referring to https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0498/#escape-sequences ?
so they should highlight the code parts of f-literals as code to avoid bugs and misunderstandings (parts highlighted as string aren’t expected to execute). for many syntax highlighters, it’s *impossible* to properly highlight python code after this change makes python’s grammar recursive (escaped code in f-literals, doubly-escaped code in escaped f-literals in f-literals, …).
i want this changed because i think it’s only done this way to reuse the string tokenization code (i.e. convenience), not for some deeper reason. the RFC even says so. however, f-literals aren’t strings, but expressions, so string tokenization rules shouldn’t apply to the non-string parts.
how am i going about changing f-literal grammar before the beta hits?
You can post to python-ideas and start a discussion there as the PEP has already been accepted and implemented with the current semantics or ask for clarification for the reasoning behind the decision here on python-dev.
i consider this important enough to defer f-literals to 3.7 if it can’t get in in time.
I just wanted to let you know, Philipp, that your email comes off as somewhat demanding, e.g. "I want this changed". Had you asked why the decision was made then your email would not come off as "I'm right and you're wrong" and more about you asking for clarification to understand why, and then if you still disagreed with the thought process then bring up that you think it may have been a mistake. -Brett
best, philipp
Ned Deily <nad@python.org> schrieb am Di., 16. Aug. 2016 um 05:02 Uhr:
On behalf of the Python development community and the Python 3.6 release team, I'm happy to announce the availability of Python 3.6.0a4. 3.6.0a4 is the last of four planned alpha releases of Python 3.6, the next major release of Python. During the alpha phase, Python 3.6 remains under heavy development: additional features will be added and existing features may be modified or deleted. Please keep in mind that this is a preview release and its use is not recommended for production environments.
You can find Python 3.6.0a4 here:
https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-360a4/
The next planned release of Python 3.6 will be 3.6.0b1, currently scheduled for 2016-09-12. 3.6.0b1 will mark the beginning of the beta phase of Python 3.6; at that time, feature development for 3.6 will be complete and the emphasis will change to fixing bugs and regressions. More information about the release schedule can be found here:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0494/
--Ned
-- Ned Deily nad@python.org -- []
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/flying-sheep%40web.de
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org