Python's new t-strings

Re:Python's new t-strings by davepeck on Monday April 21, 2025 @01:17PM (#43754220)

Hi! I wrote this. :-)

I'm a little late to the conversation (and a bit surprised to see this trending on HN) but am happy to answer any questions; I'll try to pop in throughout the day.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Python's new t-strings by maxloh on Monday April 21, 2025 @01:27PM (#43754336)

Hi. I come from a JavaScript background.

I am wondering what is the reason behind not using a similar syntax to JavaScript? Seems simpler to me.

  # Compare this:
  template = t"<p>{evil}</p>"
  safe = html(template)

  # To this:
  safe = html"<p>{evil}</p>"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Python's new t-strings by davepeck on Monday April 21, 2025 @01:43PM (#43754479)

The PEP originally started with a similar-to-javascript syntax but over time we decided it wasn't the right way to expose these ideas in Python. There's more detail about why this approach was rejected in the PEP: https://peps.python.org/pep-0750/#arbitrary-string-literal-p...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Python's new t-strings by varunneal on Monday April 21, 2025 @01:37PM (#43754430)

Would be interested in inclusion of PEP 292 [1] in your discussion here, which introduced `string.Template`. Is this Template going to be deprecated?

[1] https://peps.python.org/pep-0292/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Python's new t-strings by davepeck on Monday April 21, 2025 @01:41PM (#43754467)

PEP 292's `string.Template` will remain; there are no plans to deprecate it.

PEP 750's `string.templatelib.Template` is a separate and unrelated type. Amongst many differences, unlike PEP 292, `Template` has a literal form too.

I'm hopeful that the confusion will be minimal; in practice, PEP 292 (aka $-strings) is used only in specialized cases, like flufl.i18n, a really deep I18N framework.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Python's new t-strings by 18172828286177 on Monday April 21, 2025 @01:22PM (#43754275)

This is super cool, thank you.

[ Parent | on HN ]