Message162226
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? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-06-03 18:28:13 | vinay.sajip | set | recipients:
+ vinay.sajip, terry.reedy, ncoghlan, eric.smith, eric.araujo, meador.inge, Ramchandra Apte |
2012-06-03 18:28:13 | vinay.sajip | set | messageid: <1338748093.47.0.201190259018.issue13598@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-06-03 18:28:12 | vinay.sajip | link | issue13598 messages |
2012-06-03 18:28:12 | vinay.sajip | create | |
|