Right now in str.format(), we have !s, !r, and !a to allow us to call str(), repr(), and ascii() respectively on the given expression.

I'm proposing that we add a !p conversion to have pprint.pformat() be called to convert the given expression to a 'pretty' string.

Calling
```
print(f"My dict: {d!p}")
```

is a lot more concise than:

```
import pprint
print(f"My dict: {pprint.pformat(d)}")
```

We may even be able to have a static attribute stored to change the various default kwargs of pprint.pformat().

This needs discussion on python-ideas/ideas category on discourse similar to f-string debug notation.

Fair enough. Didn't really know that list existed. Sent this there. Awaiting moderator approval. Thanks.

If the python-ideas discussion is fruitful, go ahead and re-open this tracker item.

Personally, I don't see how this would work.  The pretty printing routines rely on knowing their current level of indentation.  Also, much of the "prettiness" comes from making the output span multiple lines, so this wouldn't fit well in the middle of an f-string.  Lastly, the pprint module leaves a lot to be desired and likely needs a rewrite from scratch, so it wouldn't be wise to tie it directly to a core language feature.

One of the key things for ppformat here is to format long spanning dicts/lists to multiple lines, that look easy to read in a log. I feel as though that feature/usefulness outweigh potential indentation weirdness.

A lot of the usage would probably be towards the end of an fstring.

I agree with Raymond that it's unlikely that this will work, as a practical matter. In addition to the other problems mentioned, there's the issue of the many parameters to control pprint.

And I agree with pprint, or a replacement, needing a redesign. I think it should use singledispatch.

In terms of multiple parameters, I propose adding a method to control the defaults used by !p.

Though the defaults would work more than well enough for basic log and print usage.

I suggest you discuss this on python-ideas, since we'll need to reach consensus there, first.