[Python-checkins] python/nondist/peps pep-0292.txt,1.3,1.4

[bwarsaw@users.sourceforge.net]

Update of /cvsroot/python/python/nondist/peps
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv32280

Modified Files:
	pep-0292.txt 
Log Message:
Bunch of updates (not sure I got them all, the thread was looonggg. ;)


Index: pep-0292.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/python/python/nondist/peps/pep-0292.txt,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -C2 -d -r1.3 -r1.4
*** pep-0292.txt	20 Jun 2002 03:58:03 -0000	1.3
--- pep-0292.txt	23 Jun 2002 02:20:50 -0000	1.4
***************
*** 37,41 ****
  
      In addition, the rules for what can follow a % sign are fairly
!     complex, while the usual application rarely needs such complexity.
  
  
--- 37,47 ----
  
      In addition, the rules for what can follow a % sign are fairly
!     complex, while the usual application rarely needs such
!     complexity.  Also error prone is the right-hand side of the %
!     operator: e.g. singleton tuples.
! 
!     Most scripts need to do some string interpolation, but most of
!     those use simple `stringification' formats, i.e. %s or %(name)s
!     This form should be made simpler and less error prone.
  
  
***************
*** 246,249 ****
--- 252,271 ----
         are doing simple text processing in some kind of
         embedded-Python environment."
+ 
+      - Should we take a cue from the `make' program and allow $(name)
+        as an alternative (or instead of) ${name}?
+ 
+      - Should we require a dictionary to the .sub() method?  Some
+        people feel that it could be a security risk allowing implicit
+        access to globals/locals, even with the proper admonitions in
+        the documentation.  In that case, a new built-in would be
+        necessary (because none of globals(), locals(), or vars() does
+        the right the w.r.t. nested scopes, etc.).  Chirstian Tismer
+        has suggested allvars().  Perhaps allvars() should be a method
+        on a frame object (too?)?
+ 
+      - It has been suggested that using $ at all violates TOOWTDI.
+        Some other suggestions include using the % sign in the
+        following way: %{name}