On 25 August 2015 at 01:03, Paul Moore
On 24 August 2015 at 13:41, Eric V. Smith
wrote: On 08/24/2015 07:35 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
I'm once again losing the thread of all the variations being proposed.
As a reality check, is the expectation that something like the following will still be possible:
print(f"Iteration {n}: Duration {end-start} seconds")
Yes, that's the PEP 498 proposal. I think (and this is just my opinion) that if we do something more complicated, like the delayed interpolation of i-strings, that we'd still keep f-strings.
OK. That's my point, essentially - the discussion has drifted into much more complex areas, with comments about how the wider-ranging proposals cover the f-string case as a subset, and I just wanted to be sure that there wasn't an implied "so we don't need f-strings any more" in there. (Nick at one point spoke quite strongly against adding multiple ways of doing the same thing).
That was before my proposed design converged on being a potential implemention detail of Eric's, though :) Now we have the option of adding types.InterpolationTemplate as an implementation detail of f-strings, and then deciding *later* whether we want to allow creating of interpolation templates with deferred rendering. In that regard, Guido suggested that I split PEP 501 into two different PEPs, one for deferred rendering (which could be done as an implementation detail of f-strings, with f"templated {text}" being shorthand for format(i"templated {text}")), and another for $-substitution over {}-substitution (which would be a competing proposal for the surface syntax of the substitution expressions). I think that's a good idea, so I'll do that some time this week (not sure when, though) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia