"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote:
"MAL" == M <mal@lemburg.com> writes:
MAL> 1. %% becomes %
MAL> 2. %ident maps to %(ident)s as we have it now
MAL> 3. %{ident} maps to %(ident)s
MAL> 4. %(ident)s continues to have the same semantics as MAL> before
What happens to %dogfood or %sickpuppy? If you're trying to maintain backwards compatibility with existing syntax, you can't use %ident strings.
That's what I was trying to achieve. The only gripe I sometimes have with '%(ident)s' is that users forget the 's' behind '%(ident)'; I'd be ok with dropping 2. and only adding 3. Whatever you do, just please don't mix the old and new semantics... 'Joe has $ %(a)5.2f in his pocket.' % locals() is perfectly valid now and should continue to be valid. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Company & Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/