←back to thread

620 points tambourine_man | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.231s | source
Show context
serbuvlad ◴[] No.43750075[source]
All things considered, this is pretty cool. Basically, this replaces

    db.execute("QUERY WHERE name = ?", (name,))
with

    db.execute(t"QUERY WHERE name = {name}")
Does the benefit from this syntactic sugar outweigh the added complexity of a new language feature? I think it does in this case for two reasons:

1. Allowing library developers to do whatever they want with {} expansions is a good thing, and will probably spawn some good uses.

2. Generalizing template syntax across a language, so that all libraries solve this problem in the same way, is probably a good thing.

replies(12): >>43750226 #>>43750250 #>>43750260 #>>43750279 #>>43750513 #>>43750750 #>>43752117 #>>43752173 #>>43752293 #>>43754738 #>>43756560 #>>43763190 #
pinoy420 ◴[] No.43750226[source]
Now instead of being explicit all it takes is someone unfamiliar with t strings (which will be almost everyone - still few know about f strings and their formatting capabilities) to use an f instead and you are in for a bad time.
replies(5): >>43750270 #>>43750280 #>>43750323 #>>43751292 #>>43753934 #
mcintyre1994 ◴[] No.43750323[source]
Any sane library will just error when you pass a string to a function that expects a template though. And that library will have types too so your IDE tells you before you get that far.
replies(2): >>43752466 #>>43753438 #
_Algernon_ ◴[] No.43753438[source]
This would break backwardcompatibility pretty hard. In many cases it may not be worth it.
replies(2): >>43753990 #>>43754551 #
1. eichin ◴[] No.43753990[source]
But now at least the language has the necessary rope (and an opportunity for a cultural push to insist on it.)