121–130 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if an autoformatter like black is at play here.
Black doesn't split strings, and I doubt they'd choose to use concatenation if they did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? Raise a deprecation notice, treat it as a fatal error in two or three years and that's it. PHP has been doing this for years now.
Also see: Python 2 => 3 hell. Nobody wants to repeat that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't having a public github repo consent?
Is having a publicly reachable email address consent to receiving unsolicited emails? Is having a public postal address consent to receiving mailed advertisements? Legally, yeah; morally, less so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not clear to me that folks would want this behavior globally - I personally would not, because sometimes I want to be able to include curly braces in my strings without it being interpolated, and I prefer the current syntax of having that just work. I'm very comfortable with having to add the 'f' to the string syntax to declare that this particular string should be interpolated. There are other issues you'd have…
Well, you could put a N" your string with{} in it" to type-specify that you are not F-string. In fact, WHY are strings not fully specified every time? There is nothing wrong with F"This is also an f-string". After all, strings are just number sequences with special meanings assigned to some values in some circumstances. Seems to me the problem is similar to wanting 1 be interpreted as an int --- if you want float, yo…
One obvious and dangerous application of these "smarts" is when people expect curly braces to be treated as string literals. What if a string contained an example f-string that contained {sensitive-server-information}? It's reasonable to expect that code like that wouldn't later become vulnerable to injection attacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you could put a N" your string with{} in it" to type-specify that you are not F-string. In fact, WHY are strings not fully specified every time? There is nothing wrong with F"This is also an f-string". After all, strings are just number sequences with special meanings assigned to some values in some circumstances. Seems to me the problem is similar to wanting 1 be interpreted as an int --- if you want float, yo…
> It's always possible to conjure corner-case failure modes; but shouldn't the 'common case' be catered to It is: normal strings are the common case.
As to 'injection' attacks -- I have no sympathy for somebody who takes user input, does not check it, and throws it at SQL. All user input should be checked 7 ways from Sunday before it's even passed to a part of the program that's supposed to deal with said input.
From my perspective, I'm just trying to say "there has got to be a better way". yes, we can survive, but -- as the OP shows -- a bunch of auto-fixed bugs went away. Why were the bugs there in the first place?
I have a saying that programmers spend too much time debugging; and if they would just not put the bugs in, in the first place, debugging could be reduced. To do that, you need help from your language. Other things also matter, sure. But give me constructs that make it hard for me to screw up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not really a feasible solution in Python because that change would break a load of existing code.
So what? Raise a deprecation notice, treat it as a fatal error in two or three years and that's it. PHP has been doing this for years now.
Python already went through exactly that disaster once before, when they changed the default string type from b””-strings to u””-strings. It took about 20 years for this transition to finally complete.
I find it ironic that the article points out that relying on error from humans to find errors is something of a hit or miss proposition and suggests that automating error finding is an appropriate course instead of making it less likely to make the error in the first place. For example, I wonder how many errors would have been found if the definition of a format string was the default? That is, how many times would p…
Spaces as list separator could also fall into this philosophical question of what makes most sense as string separators. Some times it is super convenient, until you have actual spaces in your string and it becomes a pita.
See also the yaml Norway problem for what happens when implicit goes over explicit.
It generates about the same amount of bugs, if not more, and would also end up with a code-review-doctor suggesting you to use /$ over $. In the end, regardless of syntax, a human always have to make the final call on whether interpolation is wanted or not.
I like python although I don't use it too often. Would it be unfairly critical of me to say that this is the outcome of a bad design choice? Ideally languages should be designed in a way that a bug like this which is so widespread and easy to create, should be caught via some mechanism, either linting or some part of the process.
I think this minor difference eliminates all confusion of whether concatenating f strings and normal strings propagate. Same when you split an existing f-string in two because it became too long, there is no risk to forget a backtick on the second pet, in the same way you would with f-prefix, because if you do the closing tick doesn’t match the opening.
Linting the existing f-strings is, as shown by this bot, unfortunately very difficult.
We've been one of 666 repos, and I'm not too happy of having our repo used as advertising space. Some thoughts: - I'm happy to receive fix-a-typo PRs from human users. In this case the other side demonstrated that they care by putting in a bit of manual effort, and a small PR often paves the way towards larger contributions. I also know that open source beginners get really excited about their first small contributio…
You have a public repository on GitHub. You are free to switch it to private, but otherwise this absolutely illogical. No one needs your consent to submit PRs to and highlight a public repository.
This is equivalent to having a website and then getting angry about linking to it, or putting your artwork up for public viewing and then getting angry at someone pointing out a small tear in the fabric.
Actually, now that I think of it, it’s better comparable to someone bringing in a handheld scanner with a company name on it, scanning the artwork and then pointing out the tear.
Which is still totally fine. You’ve given implied consent by making it available to the public. You have decided to make it possible for the public to view it, criticize it and link to it.
Quote Wikipedia,
> Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, *study*, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone *and for any purpose*
Case closed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's always possible to conjure corner-case failure modes; but shouldn't the 'common case' be catered to It is: normal strings are the common case.
That's true, 'normal' strings are the common case -- IF what you are doing requires the use of 'normal strings'. If you are doing formatting for output, then the 'normal' string is an f-string. As to 'injection' attacks -- I have no sympathy for somebody who takes user input, does not check it, and throws it at SQL. All user input should be checked 7 ways from Sunday before it's even passed to a part of the program t…
I do want to point out that only interpolating f-strings containing variables that exist is actually more likely to cause bugs because a string "{foo}" may be fine at one point, but then down the road another programmer happens to declare a global variable foo somewhere completely different, thus causing this string to change. The more important issue, though, is that f-strings contain expressions, not just variables, so you can do things like f'{1+1}' or f'There are {len(os.environ)} env vars defined.'. It's not clear what special cases for expressions inside the braces would magically become f-strings and which would not.