On 14May2013 20:00, Jan Kaliszewski <zuo@chopin.edu.pl> wrote: | 14.05.2013 19:24, Mark Dickinson wrote: | | >> raise errors.DataError( | >> 'Inconsistent revenue item currency: ' | >> 'transaction=%r; transaction_position=%r' % | >> (transaction, transaction_position)) | > | >Agreed. I use the implicit concatenation a lot for exception | >messages like the one above | | Me too. | | But what do you think about: | | raise errors.DataError( | 'Inconsistent revenue item currency: ' | c'transaction=%r; transaction_position=%r' % | (transaction, transaction_position)) | | c'...' -- for explicit string (c)ontinuation or (c)oncatenation. I'm -1 on it myself. I'd expect c'' to act like b'' or u'' or r'': making a "string"-ish thing in a special way. But c'' doesn't; the nearest analog is r'' but c'' goes _backwards_. I much prefer: + 'foo' over c'foo' The former already works and is perfectly clear about what it's doing. The "c" does not do it any better and is easier to miss, visually. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> On the contrary of what you may think, your hacker is fully aware of your company's dress code. He is fully aware of the fact that it doesn't help him to do his job. - Gregory Hosler <gregory.hosler@eno.ericsson.se>