A literal string type for Python

Posted Apr 17, 2022 11:30 UTC (Sun) by felix.s (guest, #104710)
In reply to: A literal string type for Python by iabervon
Parent article: A literal string type for Python

There is already a PEP for that, PEP 501. It was (as I recall) drafted in parallel with PEP 498, but the former was deferred because the Python developers wanted to get ‘further experience’ with naïve interpolation, as if they failed to understand that this will just incentivise developers to introduce bugs into their code by reaching for the injection-prone naïve f-strings instead, the very thing they are trying to paper over here. Or perhaps, if we take the deferral rationale seriously, they deliberately aimed for the PHP approach, where they first introduce a simplistic, half-baked design into the language, only to have to resort to painful after-the-fact fixes over the following years.

Meanwhile, JavaScript has had an equivalent to PEP 501 (tagged template strings) from the very start, added at the same time as naïve interpolation. I still find it hardly ideal (it's a bit too easy to simply forget the tag), and say what you want about the TC39, but at least they seem to understand developer incentives well. At this point, and I can’t believe I am saying this, I am starting to see JavaScript as a better Python than Python.