News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Python 3 Exists. Parent comment

Re:Why Python 3 Exists by mixmastamyk on Thursday December 17, 2015 @12:27PM (#10752816)
Simplified to this in Py 3.6:

    f'{one} {two}'
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Python 3 Exists by teddyh on Thursday December 17, 2015 @03:45PM (#10754403)
Do you have a reference for that? Wouldn’t that be introducing a huge security hole in all programs?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Python 3 Exists by mixmastamyk on Thursday December 17, 2015 @03:51PM (#10754451)
PEP 498. Literals only, does not add any additional security problems.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Python 3 Exists by teddyh on Thursday December 17, 2015 @06:36PM (#10755517)
Ah, right; I missed the ‘f’ prefix. And since it’s only done when parsing the expression, it is not a security problem. Thanks!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Python 3 Exists by kazagistar on Thursday December 17, 2015 @03:50PM (#10754438)
Is it actually happening? Proper string interpolation? In all its extendable glory?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Python 3 Exists by mixmastamyk on Thursday December 17, 2015 @03:53PM (#10754462)
Pep was accepted, and I believe can be tried in a nightly or alpha release. It is not extensible though, GvR didn't see much utility, yet at least.
[ Parent | on HN ]