Re: [Python-ideas] Briefer string format

July 20, 2015

      Hmm, I prefer this recipe sent to me directly by joejev:
...
...
...
import sys
from collections import ChainMap
def f(cs):
...     """Format a string with the local scope of the caller
...
...     Parameters
...     ----------
...     cs : str
...         The string to format.
...
...     Returns
...     -------
...     formatted : str
...         The string with the format units filled in.
...     """
...     frame = sys._getframe(1)
...     return cs.format(**dict(ChainMap(frame.f_locals, frame.f_globals)))
...
a = 1
f('{a}')
'1'
For yours I'd use the "pile of poo" character:  ;)

     💩("{foo}", _())

Both of these might be slower and a bit more awkward than the f'' idea, though I 
like them.

As to the original post, a pyflakes-type script might be able to look for name 
errors to assuage concerns, but as I mentioned before I believe the task of 
matching string/vars is still necessary.

-Mike

On 07/19/2015 04:59 PM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
...
Hello,
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:35:01 -0700
Mike Miller <python-ideas@mgmiller.net> wrote:
[]
...
csstext += f'{nl}{key}{space}{{{nl}'
An "f-formatted" string could automatically format with the locals
dict. Not yet sure about globals, and unicode only suggested for
now.
"Not sure" sounds convincing. Deal - let's keep being explicit rather
than implicit. Brevity?
def _(fmt, dict):
     return fmt.format(**dict)
__ = globals()
___ = locals()
foo = 42
_("{foo}", __())
If that's not terse enough, you can take Python3, and go thru Unicode
planes looking for funky-looking letters, then you hopefully can reduce
to
.("{foo}", .())
Where dots aren't dots, but funky-looking letters.