Re: % vs {} string formatting for public APIs

2016-02-22 Thread James Bennett
The only argument I see for format() over the % operator is that bytes objects explicitly do not have the format() method and so it'll catch errors where a bytes object is passed to something expecting a string. But since we're already Unicode-ifying everything at the boundaries and have been sinc

Re: % vs {} string formatting for public APIs

2016-02-22 Thread Claude Paroz
Hello, I don't see much gain with that change, except for specific cases. This would also bring a bunch of compatibility issues. I'd rather make the change when it does bring something. I understand your consistency argument, but we need to balance that with the work generated by the change in

Re: % vs {} string formatting for public APIs

2016-02-22 Thread Tim Graham
As Claude noted in the ticket for the success_url change: "I think that using the old percent-based interpolation method in get_success_url was not very wise, considering that % is a common escape marker in URLs. I'd suggest using the new format interpolation method to elude conflicts with esca

% vs {} string formatting for public APIs

2016-02-17 Thread Jon Dufresne
Hi, I noticed that some Django public APIs use the % old-style string formatting while others use the {} new-style formatting. For example: {} style * success_url [0] (Converted to {} in 1.8) * format_html [1] % style * ValidationError [2] * related_name [3] Is this difference intentional?