> On 24 Sep 2023, at 19:27, Tiago Illipronti Girardi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> There definitely is a miscommunication:
>
> The 2 first options was me spitballing an alternative against the third.
>
> The not reinventing the wheel remark was me saying that the particular
> example that you gave *on that particular message* can already be done.
I know, I just applied your advice in a different place. :)
> Also the case 2 f'{name!i}', I suggested as an extension of the current
> formatting paradigm, but is also the same as `f{name=}` except that you don't
> format the *value*,
> so I *imagine* (that word pulling more weight than I do at the gym, mind you)
> would be trivial to implement. It *needs* editor support regardless.
So just to double check. You think f’{name!i}’ would be better than simply
nameof() builtin?
I have no problems with either b) or c), but I like c) better. As you said:
print('In this context, variable', 'name', 'means an esoteric thing that we all
know about’)
Maybe it would be sensible not to couple ‘esoteric` thing with non-esoteric
ones and find its place among other unique functionality providing things, such
as id, type, exec, etc.
> While I would be very glad if my opinion is adopted by the community, do not
> substitute my opinion for the community's.
>
> Em dom., 24 de set. de 2023 às 12:29, Dom Grigonis <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> escreveu:
> I think the separation is needed between the 2:
>
> a) identifier name
> b) expression text
>
> I think there is a mix-up between these 2 which causes some confusion (at
> least to me). Wanting both made me cling to f-strings as they currently do b)
> in ‘postfix=' and a) can be extracted from it.
>
> —————
>
> I think having b) will be convenient to extract given/when/if/please deferred
> evaluation is implemented:
> a = `expr`
> print(a.__expr_text__) # ‘expr'
> —————
>
> So I think the focus here is a). I think this is what you are having in mind,
> while I think about both - thus slight miscommunication.
>
> And for it I currently see 3 options:
> 1. typing.ID['name']
> I think this one is too verbose for what it is. Also requiring an import
> 2. ‘{name!i}’
> This one is sensible (and I think is better than my prefix=)
> 3. nameof(name)
> But I am leaning towards this one.
> Pros:
> * it is not coupled with either string formatting or typing.
> * C# guys most likely gave some thought into it so the
> resulting output can potentially be modelled after it. That is: to either
> return identifier name, or the name of the attribute.
> * Also, this would be in line with your suggestion of not
> reinventing the wheel.
> * Finally, there would be no extra editor work.
> Cons:
> * Extra name in global namespace
> * Any thoughts why this isn’t a good option?
>
> Regards,
> DG
>
>> On 24 Sep 2023, at 17:44, Tiago Illipronti Girardi <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> or
>>
>> print('{a=} and b={a}')
>>
>> This already exists. Kindly stop reinventing the wheel.
>>
>> the thing that does not exist now is:
>>
>> print('In this context, variable', 'name', 'means an esoteric thing that we
>> all know about')
>>
>> where `'name'` can be substituted easily (the 'nameof' case) but it could
>> be, as an example:
>>
>> print('In this context, variable {name!i} means an esoteric thing that we
>> all know about')
>>
>> (my favorite, but interpreter maintenance costs trumps my preferences)
>> or could be done as:
>>
>> print('In this context, variable', typing.ID['name'], 'means an esoteric
>> thing that we all know about')
>>
>> which wouldn't change the interpreter at all, (but would change the stdlib).
>>
>> Either way, the 'nameof'-support needs editor support, because it is an
>> *editing* use case, the interpreter just doesn't care.
>> (It could, but it *can't* do anything without the *editor* responding to it)
>>
>> Em dom., 24 de set. de 2023 às 11:13, Dom Grigonis <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> escreveu:
>>
>>
>>> On 24 Sep 2023, at 16:42, Stephen J. Turnbull
>>> <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dom Grigonis writes:
>>>
>>>>> But it's far from concise
>>>> What could be more concise?
>>>
>>> A notation where you don't have to repeat a possibly long expression.
>>> For example, numerical positions like regular expressions. Consider
>>> this possible notation:
>>>
>>> f'There are {count} expression{pluralize(count)} denoted by {=0}.'
>>>
>>> Otherwise it isn't great, but it's definitely concise. In the
>>> simplest case you could omit the position:
>>>
>>> f'{=} is {count} at this point in the program.'
>> Hmmm...
>>
>>>>> and violates DRY -- it doesn't solve the problem of the first
>>>>> draft typo.
>>>
>>>> And how is “postfix =“ different?
>>>
>>> You *can't* use different identifiers for the name and value in
>>> "postfix =": the same text is used twice, once as a string and one as
>>> an identifier.
>> I see what you mean, but this property is arguably intrinsic to what it is.
>> And is part of f-strings vs explicit formatting property too:
>> variable = 1
>> print(f'{variable=} and b={variable}')
>> # VS
>> msg = 'variable={v} and b={v}'
>> print(msg.format(v=variable))
>> Especially, where msg can be pre-stored and reused. Then maybe not making it
>> f-string only is a better idea. So that one can do:
>> msg = '{a!i}={a} and b={a}'
>> print(msg.format(a=variable))
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/XSX3FIG6ECUXJPD5HXJ2V43GCHYI276X/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
