On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 07:04, Pasha Stetsenko <stpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Don't say that this proposal won't be abused. Every one of the OP's
> > motivating examples is an abuse of the syntax, returning non-strings
> > from something that looks like a string.
>
> If you strongly believe that if something looks like a string it ought to
> quack like a string too, then we can consider 2 potential remedies:
>
> 1. Change the delimiter, for example use curly braces: `re{abc}`. This
> would still be parseable, since currently an id cannot be followed by a set
> or a dict. (The forward-slash, on the other hand, will be ambiguous).
>
> 2. We can also leave the quotation marks as delimiters. Once this feature
> is implemented, the IDEs will update their parsers, and will be emitting a
> token of "user-defined literal" type. Simply setting the color for this
> token to something different than your preferred color for strings will
> make it visually clear that those tokens aren't strings. Hence, no
> possibility for confusion.
>
Just to add my 2 cents: there are always two sides in each language
proposal: more flexibility/usability, and more language complexity.
These need to be compared and the comparison is hard because it is often
subjective. FWIW, I think in this case the added complexity outweighs
the benefits. I think only the very widely used literals (like numbers)
deserve their own syntax. For everything else it is fine to have few extra
keystrokes.
--
Ivan
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/GD2AAFCB262JSSFZVOMUM6EXPTFJHZ4F/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
