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

feature: String interpolation #5

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Commits on Jun 2, 2023

  1. feature: String interpolation

    Adds four kinds of string interpolation split over two axes (utf-8 binary or
    unicode codepoint list, and user-facing or developer-facing formatting).
    
    The result are four general classes of syntax with interpolated values:
    
    ```
    % binary format
    <<"A utf-8 binary string: 4"/utf8>> =
      bf"A utf-8 binary string: ~2 + 2~"
    ```
    
    ```
    % list format
    "A unicode codepoint list string: 4" =
      lf"A unicode codepoint list string: ~2 + 2~"
    ```
    
    ```
    % binary debug
    <<"A utf-8 binary string: {4, foo, [x, y, z]}"/utf8>> =
      bd"A utf-8 binary string: ~{2 + 2, foo, [x, y, z]}~"
    ```
    
    ```
    % list debug
    "A unicode codepoint list string: {4, foo, [x, y, z]}" =
      ld"A unicode codepoint list string: ~{2 + 2, foo, [x, y, z]}~"
    ```
    
    Arbitrary expressions can be nested inside string interpolation
    substitutions, including variables, function calls, macros and
    even further string interpolation expressions.
    
    Design
    ======
    
    Why list- and binary-strings?
    -----------------------------
    
    In the `string` module from the stdlib, a string is represented by
    `unicode:chardata()`, that is, a list of codepoints, binaries with
    UTF-8-encoded codepoints (UTF-8 binaries), or a mix of the two.
    
    With this in mind, the list- and binary-oriented string interpolation
    syntaxes accept either type of interpolated value, but the user
    of the interpolation determines whether they want to generate a
    `unicode:char_list()` or `unicode:unicode_binary()` based on which
    kind of interpolation they use (`bf"..."` and `bd"..."` to create
    binaries, or `lf"..."` and `ld"..."` to create lists).
    
    List-strings are most useful for backwards compatibility and convenience.
    Binary-strings are most useful for memory-compactness and IO.
    
    Why user- and developer-oriented strings?
    -----------------------------------------
    
    There are two similar, but distinct cases where developers typically
    want to format strings: when logging/debugging, and when displaying
    data to users.
    
    When logging or debugging, the most important features are typically
    that any kind of term can be printed, and it should round-trip
    losslessly and be read by developers unambiguously. Examples of these
    properties are, for example, retaining runtime type information, e.g.
    keeping strings quoted when formatting them and printing floats
    with full range and resolution.
    
    When displaying to users, the most important features are typically
    that they are always going to be human-readable and cleanly formatted.
    Examples of these properties are, for example, formatting strings
    verbatim, without quotation marks, and not retaining any Erlang-isms
    (e.g. we don't want to be printing Erlang tuples, because they won't
    make much sense to the average application consumer), so we'd rather
    get a `badarg` error to push the developer to make an explicit
    formatting decision.
    
    Why no formatting options?
    --------------------------
    
    Let's consider the two use-cases introduced earlier:
    
    - Logging/debugging: Typically you want to fire-and-forget, giving
      whatever value you care about to the formatter, and just let it
      print that value unambiguously, meaning there's no need to tweak
      formatting options: `bd"~Timestamp~: ~Query~ returned ~Result~"`
    - Displaying to users: Typically you want to tightly control formatting,
      and you probably want to do so in a modular and reusable way. In that
      case, factoring out your formatting decision to a function, and
      interpolating the result of that function is probably the best way to
      go: `bf"You account balance is now ~my_app:format_balance(Currency, Balance)~"`.
    
    Notably, nothing in the design and implementation here precludes the
    future introduction of formatting options such as `bf"float: ~.2f(MyFloat)~"` as one might do
    with `io_lib:format` etc. But existing stdlib functions can offer
    similar functionality, e.g. `bf"float: ~float_to_binary(MyFloat, [{decimals, 2}, compact])~"`,
    and can be factored out into their own reusable functions.
    
    Implementation
    ==============
    
    To parse interpolated strings, the scanner tracks some additional state
    regarding whether we are currently in an interpolated string, at which
    point it enables the recognition of `~` as the delimiter for
    interpolated expressions, and generates new tokens which represent the
    various components of an interpolated string.
    
    Early during compilation and shell evaluation, interpolated strings are
    desugared into calls to functions from the `io_lib` module, and
    therefore don't impact later stages of compilation or evalution.
    
    The new string interpolation syntax was not previously valid syntax, so
    should be entirely backwards compatible with existing source code.
    TD5 committed Jun 2, 2023
    Configuration menu
    Copy the full SHA
    7236940 View commit details
    Browse the repository at this point in the history