Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PEP 701: Syntactic formalization of f-strings #2907

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Dec 2, 2022

Conversation

pablogsal
Copy link
Member

Co-authored-by: Batuhan Taskaya isidentical@gmail.com
Co-authored-by: Lysandros Nikolaou lisandrosnik@gmail.com

Co-authored-by: Batuhan Taskaya <isidentical@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lysandros Nikolaou <lisandrosnik@gmail.com>
@pablogsal pablogsal requested a review from a team as a code owner November 30, 2022 10:25
@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

CC: @lysnikolaou @isidentical 🚀

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

We need a PEP number and to update the discussion thread.

@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member

You can take 701.

A

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

@isidentical We may want to add a section on how this can benefit tool authors as some people have reached out to us regarding this.

@lysnikolaou
Copy link
Contributor

@pablogsal Should we also update .github/CODEOWNERS?

@AA-Turner AA-Turner changed the title Syntactic formalization of f-strings PEP 700: Syntactic formalization of f-strings Nov 30, 2022
@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member

@pablogsal Should we also update .github/CODEOWNERS?

Please do, yes

A

@AA-Turner AA-Turner changed the title PEP 700: Syntactic formalization of f-strings PEP 701: Syntactic formalization of f-strings Nov 30, 2022
@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach added the new-pep A new draft PEP submitted for initial review label Nov 30, 2022
Copy link
Member

@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I did a light proofreading pass limited to fixing unambiguous typos, grammar errors and syntax/technical issues, all as one-click-applyable suggestions, plus a couple comments. I also provided suggestions to convert the PEP to use actual direct reST links for the URLs instead of indirect footnotes, per the guidance in #2130 and PEP 12.

Also, after applying the suggestions, the file extension needs to be changed to be .rst rather than .txt (I was wondering why the syntax highlighting wasn't working at all, heh).

Just FYI, we suggest always using the latest PEP template when creating your PEP, which helps avoid a lot of the issues here.

Finally, as a reminder (since even experienced core devs don't always remember it), you can directly apply some or all of the suggestions in just a few clicks by going to the Files changed tab, clicking Add to batch on the suggestions you want, then clicking Commit, saving both you and reviewers a lot of time and effort.

pep-0701.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member

CAM-Gerlach commented Nov 30, 2022

As a reminder (since even experienced core devs don't always remember it), you can directly apply some or all of the suggestions in just a few clicks by going to the Files changed tab, clicking Add to batch on the suggestions you want, then clicking Commit, saving both you and reviewers a lot of time and effort.

lysnikolaou and others added 2 commits November 30, 2022 16:33
Co-authored-by: C.A.M. Gerlach <CAM.Gerlach@Gerlach.CAM>
@lysnikolaou
Copy link
Contributor

lysnikolaou commented Nov 30, 2022

@CAM-Gerlach Thanks for the thorough review!
@pablogsal Took the liberty to apply the suggestions and do some final changes. Hope that's okay!

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

@pablogsal Took the liberty to apply the suggestions and do some final changes. Hope that's okay!

Of course! Thanks a lot!

pep-0701.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Exciting work!

pep-0701.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Jelle Zijlstra <jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: C.A.M. Gerlach <CAM.Gerlach@Gerlach.CAM>
Co-authored-by: Jim Fasarakis-Hilliard <d.f.hilliard@gmail.com>
pep-0701.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0701.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
@pablogsal pablogsal merged commit 242eb5f into python:main Dec 2, 2022
@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

Merging this as we will iterate over the missing details in future PRs. Thanks everyone for your fantastic feedback and for making this document so much better. You all rock 🤘

@pablogsal pablogsal deleted the fstring branch December 2, 2022 20:53
@CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member

Thanks @pablogsal ! In a bit of seemingly unintentionally perfect timing, I marked my one last comment as resolved to not block merge (since it could be addressed later, at the discretion of the PEP author) just moments before you were ready to merge it, heh, and had just completed one last source and output check a few seconds before.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
new-pep A new draft PEP submitted for initial review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants