The overlap between string literals and string template literals is indeed a tricky one, and bears some review of the options. Obviously string templates and strings have some things in common (its in the name!), but they are also different and evaluate to different types. So how “same” or “different” should they look?
Simplistic arguments in favor of “different”: - Ambiguity is bad, clarity is good - String / string template literals can be both wide and tall; having to examine the entirety to know which it is could be confusing - Simpler for compiler and specification writers Simplistic arguments in favor of “same”: - Will be perceived as “fussy” or distracting - Users are already grumpy that we’re not doing “string interpolation” and calling it a day - Most of the time, it is perfectly obvious which one it is - Have to make up yet another new and unfamiliar syntax to disambiguate, think of the bike shedding There are probably others, but none of these seem like slam-dunks one way or the other. There are a few choices here: - Keep the current syntax approach - Give STs a new syntax - Give both STs and string literals an _optional_ new syntax, such as I_IZ_STRING”…” and TEMPLATZ”…”, but allow the current approach when disambiguation is not needed The last seeks a compromise between the current path and the desire for explicitness. Suppose we allowed s”…” and t”…” literals, where the sigils were optional. What then? Obviously in the cases which are currently ambiguous-seeming, users could disambiguate explicitly. The prefix sigil means no one has to “buffer” when interpreting the code. That’s nice. Having two ways to write classical string literals might confuse people who haven’t seen them before, or stimulate unproductive “style wars”. That’s probably not too big a problem here. Overall, though, I am not so enthused about creating yet another new lexical mechanism for having different kinds of stringy things. The value is … meh, and it seems an attractive nuisance. In other languages with multiple “flavors” of string, there is a tendency to proliferate more flavors. (Raw strings, anyone?). My take is that this is something that is bothering us a lot because it is new, but I’m skeptical that it carries its weight. On Mar 11, 2024, at 9:07 AM, Archie Cobbs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:37 AM Remi Forax <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I vote for making string templates explicit. Caveat: I've been following this discussion only loosely so I'm likely to say something stupid/ignorant/redundant; if so please ignore. But I am tending to agree with Remi. The recent simplifications Brian described are a definite improvement, but now we're left with a new question: What is the advantage of having the language literals for String and StringTemplate look so confusingly similar? Reversing that question, I'm not seeing the big downside of having a simple prefix for literals like this: var s = "this is a string"; var st1 = $"this is a (degenerate) template"; var st2 = $"this is also a \{template}"; var x = "this is a \{lexical_error}"; myobj.someOverloadedMethod($"this is definitely a template"); myobj.someOverloadedMethod("this is definitely a string!"); // no need to consult javadoc here Seems like the trade-off is straightforward: Cost: one character Benefit: instant disambiguation clarity in the developer's mind At least, it makes the whole API design/overload question straightforward. Put another way, StringTemplates are a cool new language feature, and as such it seems like they deserve a "first-class" allotment in the syntax of the language. -Archie
