Terry Reedy wrote:
"Andrew Durdin" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote in message news:email@example.com...
Very likely. But given the number of times that similar proposals have been put forth in the past, it is reasonable to expect that they will be brought up again in the future by others, if this is rejected--and in that case, these other can simply be pointed to a thorough (but rejected) PEP that discusses the proposal and variants and reasons for rejection.
I agree that this would be useful. I also agree with Bob Ippolito that a new prefex might be better.
Why using a new syntax construct when you can do it with existing features?
We do already have str.split(), which is often used to postprocess string literals (in the perl qw() style), why not introduce str.dedent()?