On 19Dec2022 22:45, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 22:37, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
But this much (say with a better validator) gets you static type checking, syntax highlighting, and inherent documentation of intent.
Any half-way decent static type-checker will immediately fail as soon as you call a method on this html string, because it will know that the method returns a vanilla string, not a html string.
But what does it even mean to uppercase an HTML string? Unless you define that operation specifically, the most logical meaning is "convert it into a plain string, and uppercase that".
Yes, this was my thought. I've got a few subclasses of builtin types. They are not painless. For HTML "uppercase" is a kind of ok notion because the tags are case insensitive. Notthe case with, say, XML - my personal nagging example is from KML (Google map markup dialect) where IIRC a "ScreenOverlay" and a "screenoverlay" both existing with different semantics. Ugh. So indeed, I'd probably _want_ .upper to return a plain string and have special methods to do more targetted things as appropriate. Cheers, Cameron Simpson <cs@cskk.id.au>