Eric Smith wrote at Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:49:13 -0500:
Raymond wrote:
[Terry Reedy]
There is certainly some disconnect on the issue.
FWIW, whenever I done talks on 3.0, it is common to get an aversive reaction when the new syntax is shown. I pitch it in a positive light, but you can sense churning stomachs.
[not picking on Raymond here at all, his message was just convenient]
There are a number of comments in this thread that lead me to think not everyone is aware that .format is fully supported in 2.6. I just want to make sure everyone knows that's the case.
If you want to support 2.6+ and 3.0+, you can certainly use .format.
I think the main problem is the huge amount of existing code that uses `%` for formatting. As long as there is no easy way to migrate that code to `.format`, moves to deprecate `%`-formatting are bound to cause friction. Counting lines containing `%` in my code base gives 14534 -- a few of these are numeric (but I'd be surprised if the numeric ones are more than a couple of hundred). -- Christian Tanzer http://www.c-tanzer.at/