I don’t disagree.
After some more pondering, while text blocks and string literals clearly
have a lot of overlap - e.g. they both end up being String objects,
that’s not the case with string templates.
So, if the following assignment fails:
|String s = "foo \{bar}"; |
One might argue that perhaps the syntax should be “more obviously
different”.
Maurizio
On 13/03/2024 14:48, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Consider how we handle float vs. double literals. They overlap for
32-bit values, which is very convenient, but you can also "force" a
narrower interpretation by adding an "f" suffix. That seems like
pretty much the best of both worlds to me.
So is this an analogous situation? Then we'd allow a StringTemplate
literal to have an /optional/ "$" prefix:
obj.takingString("abcd"); // ok - string
obj.takingTemplate("abcd"); // ok - template
obj.takingStringOrTemplate($"abcd"); // ok - template
obj.takingStringOrTemplate("abcd"); // ok - string or template
(personally I don't care)
obj.takingString($"abcd"); // fail
obj.takingTemplate($"abcd"); // ok - template
obj.takingString("x = \{var}"); // fail
obj.takingTemplate("x = \{var}"); // ok - template
