Update on String Templates (JEP 459)

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

On 14/03/2024 22:36, Robbe Pincket wrote:
> (I’m not a big fan of `TEMPLATE"Foo: \{bar}"` either as it’s just so 
> much longer than `"Foo: " + bar`)

Note that when I suggested TEMPLATE as a prefix I was obviously not 
being super serious :-)

Let's do a test (bear with me). Let's assume the two prefixes were S and 
T (not saying I like them, just trying them out for size). Let's also 
assume there's no conversion. Then your examples become:

```
String s1 = "test" // still a string literal
StringTemplate st2 = T"test" // allowed, constant strings can be 
implicitly converted to templates
StringTemplate st3 = "Foo: \{bar}" // Simple string template

String s4c = S"Foo: \{bar}" // short for String.of("Foo: \{bar}")

```

I think that's not too bad? (please don't focus too much on the letters).

In the sense: the rare cases (st2) has a prefix. And the operation we 
want explicit (s4c) also has a prefix. Everything else is fine.

Control question #1: does the conversion here change things much? Or, 
are we reaching for conversions just to have something "shorter" ?

Control question #2: let's now assume that S and T were spelled (String) 
and (StringTemplate), respectively. How do we feel about this?

```
String s1 = "test" // still a string literal
StringTemplate st2 = (StringTemplate)"test" // allowed, cast from 
constant string to template
StringTemplate st3 = "Foo: \{bar}" // Simple string template

String s4c = (String)"Foo: \{bar}" // allowed, cast from template back 
to String (interpolation)

```

Maurizio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-spec-observers/attachments/20240314/6a70095a/attachment-0001.htm>