On 7 October 2015 at 22:34, Andrew Barnert <abarnert@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 7, 2015, at 04:35, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
The parallel I'd attempt to draw is that:
f"{header}{content}{footer}" is to "{}{}{}".format(header, content, footer)
as:
bf"{header:b}{content:b}{footer:b}" would be to b"%b%b%b" % (header, content, footer)
To make the behaviour clearer in the latter case, it may be reasonable to *require* an explicit field format code, since that corresponds more closely to the mandatory field format codes in mod-formatting.
Are you suggestive that if a format specifier is given, it must include the format code (which seems perfectly reasonable to me--guessing that :3 means %3b is likely to be wrong more often than it's right…), or that a format specifier must always be given, with no default to :b (which seems more obtrusive and solves less of a problem).
I was thinking the latter, but your idea of ":b" being implied only if there's no format specifier at all (and otherwise requiring an explicit "b" or other format code) might be better. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia