On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Eric V. Smith <eric@trueblade.com> wrote:
On 08/10/2015 02:44 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On 2015-08-10 2:37 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>> This is why I think PEP-498 isn't the solution for i18n. I'd really like
>> to be able to say, in a debugging context:
>>
>> print('a:{self.a} b:{self.b} c:{self.c} d:{self.d}')
>>
>> without having to create locals to hold these 4 values.
>
> Why can't we restrict expressions in f-strings to
> attribute/item getters?
>
> I.e. allow f'{foo.bar.baz}' and f'{self.foo["bar"]}' but
> disallow f'{foo.bar(baz=something)}'

It's possible. But my point is that Barry doesn't even want
attribute/item getters for an i18n solution, and I'm not willing to
restrict it that much.

I also don't want to tie this closely to i18n. That is (still) very much a wold of its own.

What I want with f-strings (by any name) is a way to generalize from print() calls with multiple arguments. We can write

  print('Todo:', len(self.todo), '; busy:', len(self.busy))

but the same thing is more awkward when you have to pass it as a single string to a function that just sends one string somewhere. And note that the above example inserts a space before the ';' which I don't really like. So it would be nice if instead we could write

  print(f'Todo: {len(self.todo)}; busy: {len(self.busy)}')

which IMO is just as readable as the multi-arg print() call[1], and generalizes to other functions besides print().

In fact, the latter form has less punctuation noise than the former -- every time you insert an expression in a print() call, you have a quote+comma before it and a comma+quote after it, compared to a brace before and one after in the new form. (Note that this is an argument for using f'{...}' rather than '\{...}' -- for a single interpolation it's the same amount of typing, but for multiple interpolations, f'{...}{...}' is actually shorter than '\{...}\{...}', and also the \{ part is ugly.)

Anyway, this generalization from print() is why I want arbitrary expressions. Wouldn't it be silly if we introduced print() today and said "we don't really like to encourage printing complicated expressions, but maybe we can introduce them in a future version"... :-)

Continuing the print()-generalization theme, if things become too long to fit on a line we can write

  print('Todo:', len(self.todo),
        '; busy:', len(self.busy))

Can we allow the same in f-strings? E.g.

  print(f'Todo: {len(self.todo)
        }; busy: {len(self.busy)
        }')

or is that too ugly? It could also be solved using implicit concatenation, e.g.

  print(f'Todo: {len(self.todo)}; '
        f'busy: {len(self.busy)}')

[1] Assuming syntax colorizers catch on.

--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)