On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> On the other hand, not having this code in stringlib would certainly be
> liberating! Maybe I'll take this opportunity to clean it up and simplify
> it now that it's free of the stringlib constraints.
Yeah, don't sacrifice speed in str.format
On 10/1/2011 9:26 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 29.09.2011 01:21, schrieb Eric V. Smith:
>> Is there some reason str.format had such major surgery done to it?
>
> Yes: I couldn't figure out how to do it any other way. The formatting
> code had a few basic assumptions which now break (unless yo
Am 29.09.2011 01:21, schrieb Eric V. Smith:
> Is there some reason str.format had such major surgery done to it?
Yes: I couldn't figure out how to do it any other way. The formatting
code had a few basic assumptions which now break (unless you keep using
the legacy API). Primarily, the assumption
Is there some reason str.format had such major surgery done to it? It
appears parts of it were removed from stringlib. I had not even thought
to look at the code before it was merged, as it never occurred to me
anyone would do that.
I left it in stringlib even in 3.x because there's the occasional
