Message290755
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. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-03-28 19:50:37 | brett.cannon | set | recipients:
+ brett.cannon, r.david.murray, docs@python, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka, Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard, Mariatta |
2017-03-28 19:50:37 | brett.cannon | set | messageid: <1490730637.91.0.596064547763.issue29928@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2017-03-28 19:50:37 | brett.cannon | link | issue29928 messages |
2017-03-28 19:50:37 | brett.cannon | create | |
|