October 28
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 11:10:34 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 10/28/23 11:08, Imperatorn wrote:
>>>>>
>> 
>> There are no personal attacks.
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> Accusing people of weird things does not gain you any points or sympathy, it just shows you are not honest enough to see the facts without layers of politics, strategy or personal motives.
>> ...
>
> Can't make this up. Shameless juxtaposition. 🤣

Your lack of imagination does not change the facts.

> Anyway, you have well earned a spot in my Thunderbird kill file. Enjoy.

I have no idea why sharing that would be interesting to anyone. But ok, now we know 👍
October 28
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 11:35:53 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 11:10:34 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 10/28/23 11:08, Imperatorn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>> 
>>> There are no personal attacks.
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> Accusing people of weird things does not gain you any points or sympathy, it just shows you are not honest enough to see the facts without layers of politics, strategy or personal motives.
>>> ...
>>
>> Can't make this up. Shameless juxtaposition. 🤣
>
> Your lack of imagination does not change the facts.
>
>> Anyway, you have well earned a spot in my Thunderbird kill file. Enjoy.
>
> I have no idea why sharing that would be interesting to anyone. But ok, now we know 👍
when will you two stop filling this topic with trash messages

October 28
On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 12:41:42 UTC, Hors wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 11:35:53 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>> On Saturday, 28 October 2023 at 11:10:34 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> On 10/28/23 11:08, Imperatorn wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Can't make this up. Shameless juxtaposition. 🤣
>>
>> Your lack of imagination does not change the facts.
>>
>>> Anyway, you have well earned a spot in my Thunderbird kill file. Enjoy.
>>
>> I have no idea why sharing that would be interesting to anyone. But ok, now we know 👍
> when will you two stop filling this topic with trash messages

I hope soon :D
October 30

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 14:19:01 UTC, Hors wrote:

>

On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 12:43:15 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:

>

On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 12:38:52 UTC, Commander Zot wrote:

>

can we please just have i"whatever ${var}" to return a fully interpolated string

No. Please discontinue this thread, we've been over this a million times, no point doing it again.

It's funny to see people defending interpolated strings shouldn't be string

It's funny to see people thinking interpolated strings are strings when they are in fact program code.

October 30

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 11:47:23 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:

>

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 14:19:01 UTC, Hors wrote:

>

On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 12:43:15 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:

>

On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 12:38:52 UTC, Commander Zot wrote:

>

can we please just have i"whatever ${var}" to return a fully interpolated string

No. Please discontinue this thread, we've been over this a million times, no point doing it again.

It's funny to see people defending interpolated strings shouldn't be string

It's funny to see people thinking interpolated strings are strings when they are in fact program code.

I'm not sure if you are joking. Most people here understand that there is boilerplate code under interpolated strings. What many didn't like was the clumsy syntax in order to create a string from an interpolated string.

Nor having any form of implicit conversions in the language is a limitation.

October 30

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 12:54:05 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

>

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 11:47:23 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:

>

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 14:19:01 UTC, Hors wrote:

>

On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 12:43:15 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:

>

On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 12:38:52 UTC, Commander Zot wrote:

>

can we please just have i"whatever ${var}" to return a fully interpolated string

>

I'm not sure if you are joking. Most people here understand that there is boilerplate code under interpolated strings. What many didn't like was the clumsy syntax in order to create a string from an interpolated string.

It's close to Halloween, so I think it might be that!

I have proposed having both i and s, where s could to .text/.format for you basically.

It's reasonable, hygenic, expected and familiar. I don't have an issue with i"" not being a string, but it would be nice to also have s"" which would be a string.

October 30

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 12:54:05 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

>

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 11:47:23 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:

>

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 14:19:01 UTC, Hors wrote:

>

On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 12:43:15 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:

>

On Saturday, 21 October 2023 at 12:38:52 UTC, Commander Zot wrote:

>

can we please just have i"whatever ${var}" to return a fully interpolated string

No. Please discontinue this thread, we've been over this a million times, no point doing it again.

It's funny to see people defending interpolated strings shouldn't be string

It's funny to see people thinking interpolated strings are strings when they are in fact program code.

I'm not sure if you are joking. Most people here understand that there is boilerplate code under interpolated strings. What many didn't like was the clumsy syntax in order to create a string from an interpolated string.

Nor having any form of implicit conversions in the language is a limitation.

the problem only exist if we call them interpolated strings. just don't to that, it will avoid endless confusion. call them interpolation tuples in the language. or whatever. just avoid calling them string at all costs.

October 30

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 13:25:17 UTC, duckchess wrote:

>

the problem only exist if we call them interpolated strings. just don't to that, it will avoid endless confusion. call them interpolation tuples in the language. or whatever. just avoid calling them string at all costs.

I had the same thought last week when we discussed this on IRC. First I thought istring would be a good name, but then one can see "string" and think of it as some some kind of string, and after some time I started calling it struple . :)

October 30

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 14:03:19 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:

>

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 13:25:17 UTC, duckchess wrote:

>

the problem only exist if we call them interpolated strings. just don't to that, it will avoid endless confusion. call them interpolation tuples in the language. or whatever. just avoid calling them string at all costs.

I had the same thought last week when we discussed this on IRC. First I thought istring would be a good name, but then one can see "string" and think of it as some some kind of string, and after some time I started calling it struple . :)

+1 for struple

October 30

On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 13:25:17 UTC, duckchess wrote:

>

the problem only exist if we call them interpolated strings. just don't to that, it will avoid endless confusion. call them interpolation tuples in the language. or whatever. just avoid calling them string at all costs.

They are likely to be some other type under the hood in other languages as well, yet they called interpolated strings. Now, I suggest that go to the forums of all the languages that has interpolated strings and instruct them to stop using that term.