On May 10, 2013, at 22:11, Random832 <random832@fastmail.us> wrote:
On 05/11/2013 01:05 AM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
How is this any better than + in the same position? It's harder to notice, and longer (remember that the only reason you're doing this is that you can't fit your strings into 80 cols).
By the way, is it just a coincidence that almost all of the people sticking up for keeping or replacing implicit concatenation instead of just scrapping it are using % formatting in their examples? You just answered your own question. The reason it's better than + in the same position, for those people, is that it would have higher precedence than %.
Ah, that makes sense. Except that % formatting is supposed to be one of those "we haven't deprecated it, but we will, so stop using it" features, so it seems a little odd to add new syntax to make % formatting easier. Also, doesn't this imply that ... is now an operator in some contexts, but a literal in others?