Author eric.smith
Recipients ajaksu2, eric.smith, gvanrossum, mark, mark.dickinson
Date 2009-04-27.16:58:29
SpamBayes Score 1.44155e-09
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
> I don't see any problem with dealing with width, alignment
> and padding with a user-specified fill character;  I think we
> should keep these if possible.  It's just zero padding where
> it's not clear what should happen.

You're correct. It's just zero padding that would be disabled.

> For the bits that are disabled (e.g., zero padding), should
> there be a ValueError raised, or do those bits just get
> silently ignored?

I think a ValueError would be best. That way if we decide to give it some
meaning in the future, we know it won't change any working code.
Date User Action Args
2009-04-27 16:58:31eric.smithsetrecipients: + eric.smith, gvanrossum, mark.dickinson, ajaksu2, mark
2009-04-27 16:58:29eric.smithlinkissue1588 messages
2009-04-27 16:58:29eric.smithcreate