The problem is that `f'{exp,format}'` is the current 'status quo'/'zeitgeist' You are trying to invert it. It looks wrong. (That's taste, not technical, if you don't think it is a problem, it isn't a problem for *you*) The technical: `f'{=name}'` doesn't tell what you're trying to do if you don't already know what it would do. And to be clear, the "nameof" part of the proposal I strongly support, I'm just debating the easiest (an prettiest, how *I* see it) way to get it Em dom., 24 de set. de 2023 às 10:01, Dom Grigonis <dom.grigonis@gmail.com> escreveu:
But it's far from concise What could be more concise?
and violates DRY -- it doesn't solve the problem of the first draft typo. And how is “postfix =“ different?
I don't see it as elegant the way "postfix =" is. Agreed.
DG