> However, I have a hard time imagining any developer who would both make such fundamental errors with f-strings currently and also switching to this option when it ships.
t-strings are a different type (both static and dynamic), f-strings are not. So t-strings can be mandated at the API level, forcing the developer into "proper" usage.
That is, you need third-party tools to differentiate between
some_call("safe literal string")
and
some_call(f"unsafe dynamically created string")
That is not the case when it comes to t-strings, `some_call` can typecheck internally that it got a t-string, and reject regular strings entirely.
Although some space probably needs to be made for composing t-strings together in case of e.g. runtime variation in items or their count. Facetting for instance. I don't know if that's a native affordance of t-strings.
t-strings are a different type (both static and dynamic), f-strings are not. So t-strings can be mandated at the API level, forcing the developer into "proper" usage.
That is, you need third-party tools to differentiate between
and That is not the case when it comes to t-strings, `some_call` can typecheck internally that it got a t-string, and reject regular strings entirely.Although some space probably needs to be made for composing t-strings together in case of e.g. runtime variation in items or their count. Facetting for instance. I don't know if that's a native affordance of t-strings.