Discussion Thread: DIP 1036--Formatted String Tuple Literals--Community Review Round 1
snarwin at gmail.com
Fri Sep 11 19:31:33 UTC 2020
On Friday, 11 September 2020 at 19:04:23 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> The complexity of the format spec may seem superfluous, however
> it serves four key roles:
> 1. It divorces the compiler entirely from details of
> generated format strings. For example, different functions that
> accept format strings might use different default format
A much easier way to do this is to simply have no default format
specifier in the first place. This is how f"..." strings would
work in my proposal. (Though I agree this was an issue with DIP
> 2. It allows overloading existing string-accepting
> functions to prevent accidental usage that happens to fit the
> parameter list (see example below).
If a function is prone to accidental usage with string
interpolation, it's probably also prone to accidental usage
without string interpolation. The solution is to use the type
system. Again, I refer you to Scott Meyers for a more detailed
> 3. It provides necessary error checking capabilities.
Not sure what you mean by this. The Phobos functions that use the
existing argument-list conventions already do error checking; is
there something they're currently missing?
> 4. It provides an additional API for user functions to
> introspect the string, building on D's existing compile-time
We can already do this with existing D features. See for example
`std.format.format`, which has an overload that introspects the
format string at compile time.
More information about the Digitalmars-d