[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Mariatta Wijaya added the comment: Thanks all! -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Mariatta Wijaya added the comment: New changeset 7b5b1379ac2c1e89ebf90b88b5d32457910e975e by Mariatta in branch '3.6': bpo-29928: Add f-string to the Glossary (GH-864) (GH-914) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/7b5b1379ac2c1e89ebf90b88b5d32457910e975e --

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Changes by Mariatta Wijaya : -- pull_requests: +814 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Mariatta Wijaya added the comment: New changeset 33db068dac7686e37736f7ecf8abb2aee0345cf2 by Mariatta in branch 'master': bpo-29928: Add f-string to the Glossary (GH-864) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/33db068dac7686e37736f7ecf8abb2aee0345cf2 --

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard added the comment: Completely agree, Mariatta. I just wanted to clarify my initial position :-) -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Mariatta Wijaya added the comment: Since this ticket is about adding f-strings to the Glossary, let's keep this as discussions about the inclusion of f-strings in the Glossary. If others want to add (byte|raw|unicode)-strings into the Glossary, they can open another ticket. Thanks :) P.S:

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard added the comment: I was probably misunderstood, too, in hindsight, it's my fault for not being more clear :-). In my first sentence I was merely pointing out the oddity of -string not being a very popular term until f-string came along. As for my second sentence

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

R. David Murray added the comment: Agreed with Brett. What I was trying to say was that we aren't going to get people to change to a different term, nor are the other 'x-string' abbreviations interesting, so we should document just f-string. But I wasn't exactly clear that that was my point

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Brett Cannon added the comment: I think we're getting bogged down in a larger scope than this issue is about. All we should be discussing in this issue is whether adding an entry in the glossary for "f-string" as it's already being used in the community is bad (which I don't think it is since

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Mariatta Wijaya added the comment: The abstract of PEP 498 states: ``` In this PEP, such strings will be referred to as "f-strings", taken from the leading character used to denote such strings, and standing for "formatted strings". ``` -- ___

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

R. David Murray added the comment: "raw" and "byte" are one syllable names, and thus as easy and more meaningful to say than "r-string" or "b-string". "unicode string" is more descriptive and not much longer, but "u-string" does occasionally get used, though mostly in a python3 context where

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard added the comment: It's odd how 'f-string' just caught on when byte, raw and unicode strings never really did (at least I personally don't see many people using b-string, r-string and u-string respectively). Shouldn't an entry for them be made too if 'f-string' would be

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: I don't have a link. There were a lot of threads about this feature and I didn't follow them. After implementing PEP 498 there was a discussion about terminology. I read discussions about coming and released Python 3.6 on StackOverflow, Reddit and other

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Martin Panter added the comment: When I wrote the documentation , I think I tried to avoid “f-string”, being jargon, and used more formal terminology from PEP 498 instead. But I agree they more than regular literals.

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: "f-string" is widely used, but misleading term. It is not used in the documentation. But "formatted string literal" is not better. This isn't literal, this isn't special kind of strings, this is a special formatting expression resulting to string. There

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Changes by Mariatta Wijaya : -- stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

Changes by Mariatta Wijaya : -- pull_requests: +764 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue29928] Add f-strings to Glossary

New submission from Mariatta Wijaya: The Glossary section should mention f-strings, starting in Python 3.6. -- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 290682 nosy: Mariatta, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Add f-strings to Glossary