DIP 1027--String Interpolation--Final Review Discussion Thread

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 at 18:41:20 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> Under the addendum proposal, is it also the case that functions 
> that take strings or printf can instead take the interpolated 
> string?

That would depend on the druntime implementation. I think my 
preference would be it implicitly casts to string and const char* 
if and only if all format specifiers are given by the user.

I just wrote up a revised DIP based on Walter's to detail my 
current thoughts:

https://gist.github.com/adamdruppe/a58f097d974b364ae1cbc8c050dd9a3f

and wow that took like 3 hours. I have other things to do now so 
I haven't proofread it yet, but it basically explains what I'm 
feeling is ideal based on this thread with a couple small new 
ideas (like the `idup` overload that replaces my old `toString` 
proposal)

But the executive summary is

1) Steven's proposal from earlier, but with `Format.init` changed 
to `Format(null)`. Same result now but easier to add another 
argument in the future if we decide to extend this.

2) A sample library implementation you can play with. You'll have 
to write out the lowering by hand though since I didn't do a 
mixin translator this time.

3) A couple use cases and benefit examples written up. I also 
want to mention i18n but I ran out of time like two hours ago so 
bleh.

4) Most Walter's limitations are eliminated and I cleaned up some 
of the language (like that MixinExpression) one too.


I got more into the implementation weeds than I probably should 
have but with that you can see more clearly in exact detail what 
behavior I am envisioning.