On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Mike Samuel <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2009/12/14 Ash Berlin <[email protected]>: > > > > On 14 Dec 2009, at 22:44, Mike Samuel wrote: > > > >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:quasis > >> is a strawman for a concrete syntax that enables string interpolation > >> as described in > >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:string_interpolation . > >> > >> So far it's just an uploaded HTML file but I plan to make it more wiki > friendly. > >> If people want to edit it, let me know and I'll put out a wiki form > pronto. > > > > First things first: the string interpolation strawman[1] is not string > interpolation. It's LINQ (Language Integrated Query) or very similar, which > dare I say it, is what E4X is (or attempts to be, spec bug not withstanding) > Which isn't to say I don't think the idea has merit, it is just more than > simply string interpolation. (When i say its LINQ - it feels very much like > the query syntax front end for it.) > > I'll look into LINQ. I think it's more general purpose than E4X, but > I've never read the E4X spec so take that with a grain of salt. > > > > The pessimist in my would like to point out that you could (and people > inevitably will) still say `UPDATE foo SET x=$x`. Unless i've missed > something crucial this doesn't protect against that (as its not a > sql`UPDATE ...`. Also which 'sql' - there are many variants) > > Please see the late binding arguments in > > http://google-caja.googlecode.com/svn/changes/mikesamuel/string-interpolation-29-Jan-2008/trunk/src/js/com/google/caja/interp/index.html > for an explanation of why the sql prefix is unnecessary, and as you > describe, often damaging. > > > > backticks In perl, ruby and php is all the system execute command (which > I suspect you know) but the "where it allows interpolation though with a > more specific meaning than macro expansion" wording isn't quite correct -- > it does more than just interpolattion. > > Yes, you're right. It interpolates first and then executes it as a > shell command in perl and PHP, and I believe ruby. > > > I really like the idea of being able to do things like |var my regexp = > re`(?i:\w+$foo\w+)`;| > > > > quasi-strawman.html says: > >>> It would be convenient for some DSL use cases to allow LineTerminators > inside code, but it is unclear how this will interact with revision control > systems that rewrite newlines on checkout > > > > > > If you want to use a certain form of a new line for what ever reason, it > would probably be best to use \n. Line continuations are rather annoying to > use in practice - if you want the literal to be split over multiple lines, > and to have new lines in the source you end up ending every line with \n\ > which is just ugly. Since we are already talking about new syntax, I would > vote for allowing multi-line literals. > > So to keep score: (for multi-line 1, against: 0, unspecified, ~6B :) > Just to update the scoreboard, I could tick off at least a few dozen people that I've heard gripe about a lack of multiline literals. So ~6B - ~30...that enough? No? Damn. But seriously, I do believe that this type of proposal is a huge opportunity to bring multiline strings to js syntax. It would be a shame it didn't include some mechanism for it. [snip] > > I can understand not having printf style formatting codes, but how would > you suggest you format a number to 2 decimal places? > > `Avg. Rainfall: ${n.ToFixed(2)}cm` > Touché. I could live with that.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
