PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings

Re:PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings by jjgreen on Tuesday February 13, 2024 @05:42AM (#39356426)

PEP 2734: Okay okay, we'll implement Ruby strings

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings by emmelaich on Tuesday February 13, 2024 @07:05AM (#39356878)

Borrowing the best ideas from other languages is A Good Thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings by Sonata on Tuesday February 13, 2024 @07:11AM (#39356904)

As long as they don't make them mutable!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PEP 701 – Syntactic formalization of f-strings by bjoli on Tuesday February 13, 2024 @05:11PM (#39363549)

I don't think any sane person would use mutable strings considering the benefits you get by having an immutable string type by default. I have always said that if I were to make my own scheme (my language of choice) I the mutability of strings (and pairs) is one of the first things I would change.

Or were you thinking of anything else? I am not saying that a mutable string type should not be provided, just that it should not be the default one.

[ Parent | on HN ]