On Thu, Aug 18, 2016, at 12:17, Chris Angelico wrote: > The trouble with that way of thinking is that, to a human, the braces > contain something. They don't "uncontain" it. Those braced expressions > are still part of a string; they just have this bit of magic that gets > them evaluated. Consider this:
There's a precedent. "$()" works this way in bash - call it a recursive parser context or whatever you like, but the point is that "$(command "argument with spaces")" works fine, and humans don't seem to have any trouble with it. Really it all comes down to what exactly the "bit of magic" is and how magical it is. > IMO it doesn't matter that much either way - people will have to > figure stuff out anyway. I like the idea that everything in the quotes > is a string (and then parts of it get magically evaluated), but could > live with there being some non-stringy parts in it. My suspicion is > that what's easiest to code (ie easiest for the CPython parser) is > also going to be easiest for all or most other tools (eg syntax > highlighters). Except the parser has to actually parse string literals into what string they represent (so it can apply a further transformation to the result). Syntax highlighters generally don't. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
