On 2020-06-30 02:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote: [snip]

Counter-proposal: hex escapes allow optional curly brackets, similar to unicode name escapes. You could even allow spaces within the braces, for grouping:

# Existing: "\N{HYPHEN-MINUS}" # '-' "\x2b" # '+'

# Proposed enhancement: "\x{2b}2c" # '+2c' "\x{2b2c}" # '+,' "\x{DEAD BEEF}" # "\xDE\xAD\xBE\xEF"

This could work in f-strings and bytes as well. I think this might be of use for people who do a lot of work with binary file formats and hex escapes.

I think this is backwards compatible too, since "\x{" is currently a syntax error.

There's a precedent in other languages that use this form instead of \uXXXX and \UXXXXXXXX.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:28 PM MRAB wrote:

On 2020-06-30 02:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote: [snip]

...

Counter-proposal: hex escapes allow optional curly brackets, similar to unicode name escapes. You could even allow spaces within the braces, for grouping:

# Existing: "\N{HYPHEN-MINUS}" # '-' "\x2b" # '+'

# Proposed enhancement: "\x{2b}2c" # '+2c' "\x{2b2c}" # '+,' "\x{DEAD BEEF}" # "\xDE\xAD\xBE\xEF"

This could work in f-strings and bytes as well. I think this might be of use for people who do a lot of work with binary file formats and hex escapes.

I think this is backwards compatible too, since "\x{" is currently a syntax error.

There's a precedent in other languages that use this form instead of \uXXXX and \UXXXXXXXX.

Be careful of semantics here. I'm not sure which languages do what, but I just checked Perl, and "\x{1234}" is equivalent to Python's "\u1234", not to "\x12\x34". This proposal is for the latter, which could be sneakily confusing to someone who also writes in Perl. MRAB, can you name other languages that use this form? ChrisA

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 1:57 AM MRAB wrote:

On 2020-06-30 13:25, Chris Angelico wrote:

...

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:28 PM MRAB wrote:

...

On 2020-06-30 02:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote: [snip]

...

Counter-proposal: hex escapes allow optional curly brackets, similar to unicode name escapes. You could even allow spaces within the braces, for grouping:

# Existing: "\N{HYPHEN-MINUS}" # '-' "\x2b" # '+'

# Proposed enhancement: "\x{2b}2c" # '+2c' "\x{2b2c}" # '+,' "\x{DEAD BEEF}" # "\xDE\xAD\xBE\xEF"

This could work in f-strings and bytes as well. I think this might be of use for people who do a lot of work with binary file formats and hex escapes.

I think this is backwards compatible too, since "\x{" is currently a syntax error.

There's a precedent in other languages that use this form instead of \uXXXX and \UXXXXXXXX.

Be careful of semantics here. I'm not sure which languages do what, but I just checked Perl, and "\x{1234}" is equivalent to Python's "\u1234", not to "\x12\x34". This proposal is for the latter, which could be sneakily confusing to someone who also writes in Perl.

MRAB, can you name other languages that use this form?

Ah, right. I missed that bit. That's what happens if you post when you should be sleeping!

I was just referring to \x{...} as used in Perl, etc.

Ah, no probs :)

I suppose that "\x{DEAD BEEF}" could also mean "\x{DEAD}\x{BEEF}" or "\uDEAD\uBEEF".

Yeah, that would be handy. Reminds me of the way I used to work in REXX, where you could write "41 42 43 44"x (yes, it's a string *suffix*) and it would be equivalent to "ABCD". The spaces were optional in REXX, because it worked with bytes, but it might be safer to mandate them (to avoid the ambiguous interpretation). ChrisA

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:25:45PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

Be careful of semantics here. I'm not sure which languages do what, but I just checked Perl, and "\x{1234}" is equivalent to Python's "\u1234", not to "\x12\x34". This proposal is for the latter, which could be sneakily confusing to someone who also writes in Perl.

Is there anyone left who writes Perl :-) (I know, I know, that's a terribly unfair comment and I am a very bad man...) Seriously though, I think Perl users have a lot of things to re-learn, so I'm not worried about that. We already have a good way of writing a four hex-code unicode code point using u escapes. But we don't have a good way of writing a long sequence of control characters without a lot of repetition of `\x \x \x \x...`. -- Steven

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 09:04:15PM +0300, Mikhail V wrote:

...

Counter-proposal: hex escapes allow optional curly brackets, similar to unicode name escapes. You could even allow spaces within the braces, for grouping:

# Proposed enhancement: "\x{2b}2c" # '+2c' "\x{2b2c}" # '+,' "\x{DEAD BEEF}" # "\xDE\xAD\xBE\xEF"

Nice. But I am not sure about the data type and interpretation depending on string type. E.g. the second example:

"\x{2b2c}" # '+,'

In my example I was showing hex codepoints, e.g. U+2b2c is ⬬ (Black Horizontal Ellipse)

Your example used the `\x` escape, which takes a pair of hex digits between 0 and 255 inclusive (`\x00` to `\xFF`) and returns a single unicode character between `\u0000` and `\u00FF`. You cannot use x escapes to build up higher unicode code points in a string: '\x2b\x2c' != '\u2b2c' So I assumed that you wanted a way to include multiple such escapes in a sequence. If you want the horizontal ellipse, don't use an `\x` escape, it is the wrong one! Use `\u2b2c`. I have no interest in making `\x{2b2c}` an alternative way of writing `\u2b2c`. Just use the u (or U) escape instead of x. I have no objection to adding the same braces to unicode u and U escapes. Inside the braces, spaces and underscores can be just ignored (they are there for visual grouping). (1) Byte strings support optional braces, spaces and underscores for grouping in hex escapes: b'\x{2b 2c_2a}' == b'\x2b\x2c\x2a' == b'+,*' The spaces/underscores can appear anywhere within the braces, in any order. "Consenting adults" apply: # Valid, but don't do this. b'\x{ 2 ___ _ ___ b }' Style guides and linters can warn against writing ugly strings :-) (2) Unicode strings support the same, with the equivalent semantics: '\x{2b 2c_2a}' == '\x2b\x2c\x2a' == '+,*' (3) Similarly Unicode strings support optional braces and grouping for u and U escapes: '\u{2b 2c}' == '\u2b2c' == '\N{BLACK HORIZONTAL ELLIPSE}' '\U{0000 2b2c}' == '\U00002b2c' == '\N{BLACK HORIZONTAL ELLIPSE}' Likewise any combination of spaces and underscores, in any order, are valid. We can write hideous strings if we want :-) # Valid but don't do this. '\U{ __ 0 __0__ 0 0 2_b 2 ___c___ }' Unlike x escapes, I don't think we should support multiple code points within the u and U braces: # Not part of the proposal '\u{221a221e}' == '\N{SQUARE ROOT}\N{INFINITY}' My reasoning for this is that the leading `\x` is proportionally very "heavy" for hex escapes: fifty percent of the escape code is made up by the leading `\x`, versus just 33% for u escapes and 20% for U escapes. So there is much less benefit to grouping multiple u and U escapes in a single set of braces. The other reason why grouping u and U escapes is less useful is that often we can just include the literal unicode character as a string: '√∞' whereas you cannot do so for control characters. So my argument is to make the conservative change and only allow multiple escape codes inside braces for x escapes. (We can relax the restriction later if there is demand for it, but we cannot tighten it if we change our mind.) Likewise, I would prefer the conservative approach of still requiring leading zeroes in u and U escapes. (4) Lastly, f-strings support the same rules as unicode strings. -- Steven