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 it's seeing use "in the wild"). No one is suggesting we change all the documentation to start using the shorthand/slang term, nor to introduce entries for other types of string literals where the community has not started using such terms (e.g. r-strings for raw strings). Heck, the docs already use "f-string" internally as a link target, i.e. https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#f-strings (notice the intra-page link target).
IOW this is just making it easier for someone who comes across the term "f-string" to know what it means when they see it on e.g. Twitter, not trying to come up with a more accurate shorthand. ---------- nosy: +brett.cannon _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue29928> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
