Python 3's F-Strings: An Improved String Formatting Syntax
1–10 of 147 posts
Re: Python 3's F-Strings: An Improved String Formatting Syntax
#2I can't say I like the f" syntax much. I think JS's backtick is better.
Other than that, I agree, much better than % and less verbose than .format.
It's just the f" or f' that doesn't sit right with me
Re: Python 3's F-Strings: An Improved String Formatting Syntax
#3I can't say I like the f" syntax much. I think JS's backtick is better. Other than that, I agree, much better than % and less verbose than .format. It's just the f" or f' that doesn't sit right with me
It's consistent with other strings in Python like r-strings and the older u-strings.
Re: Python 3's F-Strings: An Improved String Formatting Syntax
#4I can't say I like the f" syntax much. I think JS's backtick is better. Other than that, I agree, much better than % and less verbose than .format. It's just the f" or f' that doesn't sit right with me
Yup, especially as you often need to access dict's with foo["field"] and you get a syntax error if the f-strings is also f"". JavaScript backtick syntax doesn't lead to this extra syntactic friction.
Re: Python 3's F-Strings: An Improved String Formatting Syntax
#5F-strings have been around for years and this article is at least a few years old. I'm curious why this is coming up now.
Re: Python 3's F-Strings: An Improved String Formatting Syntax
#6Not mentioned in the article, but with Python 3.8, f-strings have gained the ability to print debug information using `=` specifier.
name = 'world'
print(f'hello {name.upper()=}')
hello name.upper()='WORLD'
https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.8.html#f-strings-suppor...
Re: Python 3's F-Strings: An Improved String Formatting Syntax
#7I can't say I like the f" syntax much. I think JS's backtick is better. Other than that, I agree, much better than % and less verbose than .format. It's just the f" or f' that doesn't sit right with me
Yup, especially as you often need to access dict's with foo["field"] and you get a syntax error if the f-strings is also f"". JavaScript backtick syntax doesn't lead to this extra syntactic friction.
You can use any of
f"{foo['field']}"
f'{foo["field"]}'
f"""{foo["field"]}"""
Re: Python 3's F-Strings: An Improved String Formatting Syntax
#8I can't say I like the f" syntax much. I think JS's backtick is better. Other than that, I agree, much better than % and less verbose than .format. It's just the f" or f' that doesn't sit right with me
Yup, especially as you often need to access dict's with foo["field"] and you get a syntax error if the f-strings is also f"". JavaScript backtick syntax doesn't lead to this extra syntactic friction.
This is easily avoidable in python by using single quotes for the outer string and double quotes for the inner string, or vice versa. Or, use triple quotes for the outer string.
Re: Python 3's F-Strings: An Improved String Formatting Syntax
#9PHP: Am I joke to you?
Re: Python 3's F-Strings: An Improved String Formatting Syntax
#10I can't say I like the f" syntax much. I think JS's backtick is better. Other than that, I agree, much better than % and less verbose than .format. It's just the f" or f' that doesn't sit right with me
Yup, especially as you often need to access dict's with foo["field"] and you get a syntax error if the f-strings is also f"". JavaScript backtick syntax doesn't lead to this extra syntactic friction.
I'm surprised it works like that in Python. C# has similar interpolated strings but there it's legal to embed quotation marks within the curly brackets. Though I guess it's less necessary in Python since you can just use the other type of quote inside.