You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Misleading descriptions in the introduce of "Template" #137119
The template can then be combined with functions that operate on the template’s structure to produce a str or a string-like result. For example, sanitizing input:
Compared to using an f-string, the html function has access to template attributes containing the original information: static strings, interpolations, and values from the original scope. Unlike existing templating approaches, t-strings build from the well-known f-string syntax and rules. Template systems thus benefit from Python tooling as they are much closer to the Python language, syntax, scoping, and more.
In PEP-750, the author assumed that you had defined the function html:
For example, imagine we want to generate some HTML. Using template strings, we can define an html() function that allows us to automatically sanitize content:
However, in the document, the operation "define" was gone, so that some users will mistakenly think that there is a function html that has been defined.
I think that it is better to explain that the function html should be defined by user, like this:
The template can then be combined with functions that operate on the template’s structure to produce a str or a string-like result. For example, sanitizing input (assuming that you have defined a function html that can deal with the input to html):
I think the example in the What's New (To be clear: I am not talking about the PEP) would be improved if it featured the implementation. For reference, the current text in the What's New 3.14 is:
The template can then be combined with functions that operate on the template’s structure to produce a str or a string-like result. For example, sanitizing input:
Thanks all. I agree that we should probably improve the "What's New" section for 3.14 now that the rest of t-string documentation is starting to take shape. On my "to do" list for the week!
I find this distinction helpful, along with any others that might illustrate the difference from f-strings
Compared to using an f-string, the html function has access to template attributes containing the original information: static strings, interpolations, and values from the original scope. Unlike existing templating approaches, t-strings build from the well-known f-string syntax and rules. Template systems thus benefit from Python tooling as they are much closer to the Python language, syntax, scoping, and more.
In fact, I'm thinking that a two column table would be nice. I realize I may be volunteering, but as much as I dislike tables in .rST, I can give it a go.
Activity
StanFromIreland commentedon Jul 26, 2025
cc @davepeck @lysnikolaou @pauleveritt
I think the example in the What's New (To be clear: I am not talking about the PEP) would be improved if it featured the implementation. For reference, the current text in the What's New 3.14 is:
davepeck commentedon Jul 29, 2025
Thanks all. I agree that we should probably improve the "What's New" section for 3.14 now that the rest of t-string documentation is starting to take shape. On my "to do" list for the week!
blaisep commentedon Jul 30, 2025
I find this distinction helpful, along with any others that might illustrate the difference from
f-stringsIn fact, I'm thinking that a two column table would be nice. I realize I may be volunteering, but as much as I dislike tables in .rST, I can give it a go.
pauleveritt commentedon Jul 31, 2025
Thanks @blaisep for any help you can give. Feel free to ask me questions. If I don't have the answer, I can find it.
davepeck commentedon Jul 31, 2025
@blaisep @pauleveritt Just saw your comments here. I've got a first pass at this in this PR but still think it needs some work.
StanFromIreland commentedon Nov 24, 2025
It was updated in #139543.