←back to thread

Python’s new t-strings

(davepeck.org)
620 points tambourine_man | 6 comments | 21 Apr 25 04:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.853s | source | bottom
Show context
Smithalicious ◴[21 Apr 25 11:38 UTC] No.43750764[source]▶
I really was on the side of being generally willing to accept new python features, but this is getting ridiculous. What an utterly pointless thing to bloat the language with. At this point my moving to clojure as my first line language of choice is only accelerating.

This is of the category "things I wouldn't want to use even for the specific hyper niche things they're intended for". What even does a "t-string" represent? Because it's clearly not a string of any kind, it's a weird kind of function call notation. The programmer sees something that looks like string formatting, but the program executes some arbitrary procedure that might not return a string whatsoever.

replies(2): >>43751148 #>>43751503 #
1. sanderjd ◴[21 Apr 25 12:58 UTC] No.43751503[source]▶
The "bloat" is that you can now put the letter "t" in front of a string, rather than "f" or "r"?
replies(3): >>43751644 #>>43752948 #>>43755543 #
2. ◴[21 Apr 25 13:12 UTC] No.43751644[source]▶
replies(1): >>43751712 #
3. ◴[21 Apr 25 13:20 UTC] No.43751712[source]▶
4. kccqzy ◴[21 Apr 25 15:19 UTC] No.43752948[source]▶
I'm not the OP but I'm guessing with OP moving to Clojure that the bloat is basically any special syntax or special language feature that basically boils down to a function call or a let statement. A lot of functional programming languages have minimalistic expression syntax and they are just as expressive as OP needs them to be.
5. Smithalicious ◴[21 Apr 25 19:29 UTC] No.43755543[source]▶
It's a pattern moreso than this specific feature. There's an important qualitative distinction for me between something that's on the level of a library (even if it's the stdlib) on the one hand and first class features (ie things that require parser level support) on the other.

Python has historically been very conservative about this but in recent years has had one controversial language extension after another, while parts of the language that actually need love are left to languish IMO.

I wanna be very clear that this is me changing my mind -- I was (still am) very on board with the highly controversial assignment expressions ("walrus operator") for instance.

I don't have much faith about what the Python language will look like if you project the current rate of changes forward 10, 15, 20 years. It really doesn't help that I consider this new thing an active antifeature.

replies(1): >>43756666 #
6. sanderjd ◴[21 Apr 25 21:25 UTC] No.43756666[source]▶
I feel like this is begging the question... This t-string feature is only controversial inasmuch as comments like yours here are criticizing it as being controversial...