-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
List of list ver 19 VS ver 20 #1941
Comments
It's because of your trailing commas. They signal to Black that more elements may be added to the list in the future, and thus it tries to put each element onto a separate line. You can pass In your case it would be like:
|
Black used to remove the trailing comma if the expression fits in a single line, but this was changed by #826 and #1288. Now a trailing comma tells Black to always explode the expression. This change was made mostly for the cases where you know a collection or whatever will grow in the future. Having it always exploded as one element per line reduces diff noise when adding elements. Before the "magic trailing comma" feature, you couldn't anticipate a collection's growth reliably since collections that fitted in one line were ruthlessly collapsed regardless of your intentions. One of Black's goals is reducing diff noise, so this was a good pragmatic change. So no, this is not a bug, but an intended feature. The reason why you're filing this issue is probably since we say the following in the (outdated) style documentation:
We missed that this paragraph became incorrect when the "magic trailing comma" feature was introduced. It was eventually fixed in commit 6b935a3, but that was after the stable documentation was released alongside Anyway, here's the documentation on the "magic trailing comma". Hopefully that helps and sorry for the possible confusion. |
After downloading the last black version, notice some style differences in arrays of arrays:
In ver 19.10b0:
In ver 20.8b1 (blacking the previous list)
Is this expected?

Black docs are explicit about this types:
Thanks in advance!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: