May 11, 2013
5:11 a.m.
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
On 05/11/2013 01:05 AM, Andrew Barnert wrote: the same position, for those people, is that it would have higher precedence than %.