skip at pobox.com wrote:
> Brett> But how is::
>
> Brett> "{0} is happy to see {1}".format('Brett', 'Christian')
>
> Brett> that less easier to read than::
>
> Brett> "%s is happy to see %s" % ('Brett', 'Christian')
>
> Brett> ? Yes, PEP 3101 style is more to type but it isn't
grievous; we
> Brett> have just been spoiled by the overloading of the %
operator. And
> Brett> I don't know how newbies think these days, but I know I
find the
> Brett> numeric markers much easier to follow then the '%s',
especially
> Brett> if the string ends up becoming long.
>
> If you decide to insert another format token in the middle the new is
more
> error-prone than the old:
>
> "{0} asks {1} if he is happy to see {1}".format('Brett', 'Skip',
'Christian')
>
> ^^^ whoops
>
> vs:
>
> "%s asks %s if he is happy to see %s" % ('Brett', 'Skip',
'Christian')
The whole point of the indexes is that the order now doesn't matter:
"{0} asks {2} if he is happy to see {1}".format('Brett', 'Christian',
'Skip')
If you really have many items to expand, name them, and then it matters
even less:
"{asker} asks {askee} if he is happy to see
{person}".format(asker='Brett', person='Christian', askee='Skip')
Which I think is way better than the %-formatting equivalent.