Code review comment for lp://staging/~fgiff/linaro-android-bot-review/update-gerrit-and-lava-integration-2

Hi Paul,

I was explaining where the syntax came from, not defending it ;-)

Since it breaks the script for Python 2.6, which is still actively
maintained (until Oct 2013), it's worth fixing, so I'll make sure it
gets changed today.

Regards,

Frans

On 23 September 2011 13:22, Paul Sokolovsky <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:43:23 -0000
> Frans Gifford <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> []
>>
>> > Well, I wondered why "{}".format(foo) syntax was used at all...
>>
>> PEP 3101 'proposes a new system for built-in string formatting
>> operations, intended as a replacement for the existing '%' string
>> formatting operator.'
>>
>> I don't have a particular preference for one syntax over another.
>> This one sounded newer (less likely to get deprecated).
>
> With all due respect, existence of 4-digit numbered PEP with "intended
> as a replacement for the existing" in title doesn't actually make it
> replace anything existing. To replace *that* existing, one need to
> evaporate all previous versions of Python, and rewrite history of IT
> altogether, removing printf() syntax from the most used language in
> industry. Not even guy with acm.org in his email (author of those fine
> bell lettres) can do that.
>
>> So apparently in Python >= 2.7 "{}".format() is fine, but in Python
>> <= 2.6 this is an error. I've suppressed non-test output when
>> testing, so this should be fixed, but we require Python >= 2.7 to
>> run.
>
> But we run Python 2.6 on our servers. And no, I don't think it's worth
> doing upgrade (procrastination and risk management issues). So, that
> needs to be fixed. And that exactly shows what problems I have with that
> PEP and consequently its syntax. Now we need to spend extra effort on
> fixing that, plus me smells in that PEP a Perl conspiracy wanting to
> ruin Python bliss of doing simple things ONE way, so me screams of
> fighting back and removing that syntax altogether. Nothing of that would
> happen if there were no that PEP. So, only things it brings are
> confusion and strife. (Which is a recursive reason to saying no to it.)
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Paul
>
> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
> Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
> http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
>
> https://code.launchpad.net/~fgiff/linaro-android-bot-review/update-gerrit-and-lava-integration-2/+merge/76172
> You are the owner of lp:~fgiff/linaro-android-bot-review/update-gerrit-and-lava-integration-2.
>

--
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog