Re: Reviving E4X (H4E)?

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.