Can you give a brief discussion of how your version differs from PEP 498?
So far I've found:
- lots of language summarizing the discussion following PEPs 498 and 501
- %(name)s in byte strings (which I think is abominable)
- t prefix for translated strings
- some optional ideas (which I'm skipping for now)
Am I missing something?
Second, do you have a proposal for marking translatable strings that should
be extracted by pygettext but not interpolated in the spot where they
occur? (This is the N_(...) format from the pygettext docs.)
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Mike Miller
The ground seems to be settling on the issue, so I have tried my hand at a grand unified pep for string interpolation.
I originally started writing thinking I would fight arbitrary expressions, though agreeing they would be very useful. In my research however, I discovered that they've become an industry standard of sorts. So, I pivoted and started thinking of mitigation strategies to reduce their downsides instead.
There's still plenty to do and details to iron out, I'd appreciate your help. If this PEP doesn't stick I hope fragments of it can be useful for others.
https://bitbucket.org/mixmastamyk/docs/src/default/pep/pep-05XX.rst
(Pls excuse the inline links, I've not moved them to the footer yet.)
-Mike _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)