Message162226
| Author |
vinay.sajip |
| Recipients |
Ramchandra Apte, eric.araujo, eric.smith, meador.inge, ncoghlan, terry.reedy, vinay.sajip |
| Date |
2012年06月03日.18:28:12 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1338748093.47.0.201190259018.issue13598@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
It seems like the patch doesn't consider mixing of positional and keyword arguments: if you have the format string "{foo} {} {bar}", then manual will be set to True when "foo" is seen as the field_name, and fail soon after when "" is seen as the field_name the next time around.
So, the test should include something which shows that
fmt.format("{foo} {} {bar}", 2, foo='fooval', bar='barval') returns "fooval 2 barval", whereas with a format string like "{foo} {0} {} {bar}" or "{foo} {} {0} {bar}" you get a ValueError.
Also, why "automatic field numbering" vs. "manual field specification"? Why not "numbering" for both? |
|