On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 13:46, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > why not "template" for the general form and "string template" for the > unprefixed form.? > Allen > On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > [+msamuel] > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> > wrote: >> >> I have a larger concern here, which is that we're implicitly forcing >> literals to be XML, while the rest of the document is HTML. The closer >> we can get to HTML for something like this, the better (IMO). > > To emphasize Alex's point here, quasi-literals provides a mechanism for > avoiding injection attacks in any language for which you have a quasi-parser > -- whether XML, HTML, SQL, RegExp, or whatever -- all for the price of one > bit of additional syntactic sugar and no new semantics. Both vastly lighter > than E4X and vastly more useful. > E4X is dead. Long live quasi-literals! > > I love quasis and don't mind their hunchback-like name, but others say it is > a scary unknown neologism. Can we have a better term? > For the unprefixed `... ${...} ...` form we could say "string > interpolation". That's a mouthful but it is a known phrase. > Sorry to bikeshed the name! If that's the biggest problem (and it may be), > well done to you and Mike. > /be I'm happy with either "string interpolation" or "template". I can't find "template" in FutureReservedWord, but I thought it was in there. If so it would be odd to have a language feature named "template" but not have any relation to the future reserved word.Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 09:04:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:04 UTC