What type of `print` formatting do you prefer?
Paul Backus
snarwin at gmail.com
Wed Dec 22 01:40:02 UTC 2021
On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 10:07:56 UTC, rempas wrote:
> Before I make my library, I want to first ask what type of
> formatting you guys prefer between the two I'm going to show
> you.
I personally find the Python/Rust style (with `{...}`) to be more
readable than the C style (with `%...`), but both are ok.
> Also the design of the Rust-like way will be harder to
> implement (not that I mind) and it will need discussion. For
> example we are using "t: type" to specify the type, "b: base"
> to format as a signed number and specify the base, "f: number"
> to format as a float and specify the number of floating points
> etc.
One of the big advantages of C's format-string syntax is that its
conventions are largely shared across programming languages. For
example, if you know what `%d` means in C, then you also know
what it means in Java, Go, D, and any other language that uses
C-style format strings.
If you are planning on designing a new `{}`-style format-string
syntax, I would strongly recommend aiming for consistency with
other languages like Python, Rust, and C# that use `{}` for
string formatting. For example: all of those languages use `{0}`
to insert the first parameter, `{1}` to insert the second, and so
forth, so your new library should do the same.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list