On 22 October 2015 at 19:12, Eric V. Smith <eric@trueblade.com> wrote:
On 10/22/2015 1:09 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
But it'd be weird now if fR worked but fbR didn't.
Or bR (which is currently allowed) but not fbR in the future.
My own objection isn't to allowing "fR" or "fbR", it's to allowing the uppercase "F". I also don't understand why we can't say "if 'f' is part of a string prefix, it must be first". That would mean we kept the current 14 combinations: ['B', 'BR', 'Br', 'R', 'RB', 'Rb', 'U', 'b', 'bR', 'br', 'r', 'rB', 'rb', 'u'] And added only 13 more possibilities, being a lowercase 'f' prefix on its own, and as a prefix for the various b/r combinations: ['fB', 'fBR', 'fBr', 'fR', 'fRB', 'fRb', 'fb', 'fbR', 'fbr', 'fr', 'frB', 'frb'] I don't think it would ever be worth the compatibility break to require lowercase for 'rbu', or to enforce a particular relative order (although those could be good pylint rules, if they aren't already), but there's no such restrictions for the new 'f' prefix. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia