Can't roughly the same thing be achieved with % substitution?
>>> msg = '%s == %s'
>>> print(msg % ('.format', 'improvement'))
.format == improvement
>>> msg % ('Python', 'greatness')
'Python == greatness'

The main non-syntactic difference here is that msg is a normal string object rather than a bound method.

Not arguing against moving to .format, just that it doesn't seem inherently more powerful than % in this case. (I guess you could still argue that this pattern alleviates a concern with .format, namely repeated typing of .format, but that's never been an issue with % to begin with.)

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 05:10, spir <denis.spir@free.fr> wrote:
Le Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:06:37 -0500,
Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> a écrit :

> One thing probably not mentioned in the PEP is the possibility of bound
> methods, reduces typing of '.format' for reused formats.
>
>  >>> msg = "{0} == {1}".format
>  >>> print(msg('.format', 'improvement'))
> .format == improvement
>  >>> msg('Python', 'greatness')
> 'Python == greatness'

This is relevant. I've read the PEP and was not aware of such a wide open door. It allows building collections of string formats. Why not makes them public? Why not e.g. start a wiki page for common useful formats? Why not then store them into a standard module?

I see loads of uses in the sole field of UI.
"Please, enter a {0}."
"Hello, {0}! Ausgeschlafen? Press enter to continue..." (slept well?)
"name: {0} -- phone:{1} -- email{2}"

Denis
------
la vida e estranya
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas



--
It is better to be quotable than to be honest.
   -Tom Stoppard

Borowitz