[Python-Dev] Should PEP 498 specify if rf'...' is valid? (original) (raw)

Ryan Gonzalez rymg19 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 22 10:34:59 EDT 2015

Ah, I missed that part. Sorry! :/

On October 22, 2015 7:27:41 AM CDT, "Eric V. Smith" <eric at trueblade.com> wrote:

On 10/22/2015 7:32 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:

On 10/21/2015 10:57 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote:

It mentions fr'...' as a formatted raw string but doesn't say anything about rf'...'. Right now, in implementing PEP 498 support in Howl (https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/pull/118 and

https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/commit/1e577da89efc1c1de780634b531f64346cf586d6#diff-851d9b84896270cc7e3bbea3014007a5R86), I assumed both were valid. Should the PEP be more specific? Yes, I'll add some wording. Now that I check, in the Specification section, the PEP already says "'f' may be combined with 'r', in either order, to produce raw f-string literals". So I think this case is covered, no? Eric.

-- Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20151022/808bc5c9/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list