This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author brett.cannon
Recipients Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard, Mariatta, brett.cannon, docs@python, martin.panter, r.david.murray, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2017-03-28.19:50:37
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1490730637.91.0.596064547763.issue29928@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
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.
History
Date User Action Args
2017-03-28 19:50:37brett.cannonsetrecipients: + brett.cannon, r.david.murray, docs@python, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka, Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard, Mariatta
2017-03-28 19:50:37brett.cannonsetmessageid: <1490730637.91.0.596064547763.issue29928@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-03-28 19:50:37brett.cannonlinkissue29928 messages
2017-03-28 19:50:37brett.cannoncreate