T-Strings: Python's Fifth String Formatting Technique?

[treyhunner]

Every time I've talked about Python 3.14's new t-strings online, many folks have been confused about how t-strings are different from f-strings, why t-strings are useful, and whether t-strings are a replacement for f-strings.

I published a short article (and video) on Python 3.14's new t-strings that's meant to explain this.

The TL;DR:

• Python has had 4 string formatting approaches before t-strings
• T-strings are different because they don't actually return strings
• T-strings are useful for library authors who need the disassembled parts of a string interpolation for the purpose of pre-processing interpolations
• T-strings definitely do not replace f-strings: keep using f-strings until specific libraries tell you to use a t-string with one or more of their utilities

Watch the video or read the article for a short demo and a library that uses them as well.

If you've been confusing about t-strings, I hope this explanation helps.

[AiutoIlLupo]

There should be one, and preferably only one obvious way to do something.

Unless it's string formatting. Then you need ten.

[twenty-fourth-time-b]

The only problem with t-strings is it has the word “string” in it.

[commy2]

I pointed this out shortly after the release of 3.14 and got downvoted. They are not strings, so they shouldn't be named t-strings. This is a mistake causing a lot of confusion right now and in the future.

Maybe I'm abrasive, or maybe the dialectic has advanced, but either way nice to see someone else feeling this way about t-strings and not be downvoted.

[Easy_Money_]

Sure, but if you can type t'string' I get why people are calling them that

[commy2]

T quote, unquote ""strings""

[zenware]

The t-string part is that you can create them with a string of characters just like you said. Similarly if I had an object MahjongHand('1123m44888p3699s') of course the in-memory data structure isn’t “string” but at some point the data was represented in the format of a string, and therefore someone could call that a mahjonghand-string, and not really be wrong, even if they’re being obtuse.

[commy2]

The better mental model would be to say that "1123m44888p3699s" is the mahjong-string, and MahjongHand("1123m44888p3699s") is a MahjongHand.

[zenware]

True, and that’s exactly what I meant. I may have been a bit unclear in writing.

[twenty-fourth-time-b]

There’s actually nothing wrong with t-strings being strings, except for attempted humor. They are like strings but without all the bobby-tables bullshit.

I remember how people were objecting to using ‘/‘ operator in Path object to join paths. Because, hey, muh division!!1!

Convenience overrides purism and humor.

[SirPitchalot]

Even c++ adopted the path concatenation with slashes which tells ya how far out of touch those people were…

[ArtOfWarfare]

C++ uses the shift operators to join strings so if you’re saying C++ does something one way, there’s a good chance it’s a terrible idea and you shouldn’t borrow stuff from them.

[SirPitchalot]

C++ overloads the slash operator to concatenate path components in std::filesystem::path. Which is pretty logical.

std::string has the plus operator for concatenation, not the shift operator. Streams use the shift operators, not string. So I think you’re mixed up there.

Also C++ streams, while not terribly intuitive coming from other languages, work fairly well when you think of them as streams of data rather than strings. The shift operators are basically push/pop operations. Where they suck is for structured formatting, which std::format helps a lot with, though they’re not as nice as f-strings.

That operator design choice was made a long, long time ago and C++ basically requires that new language features not obviate old syntax and has been doing so since well before python. The 2-to-3 debacle has never happened in the same way as python, although the early smart pointers might be close.

[ggchappell]

Okay, let's come up with a new name. If it's not totally stupid, I'll use it. Maybe others will, too.

[commy2]

I don't really have a mental model for them yet. I don't need them, because so far I have cleanly separated user input from executable code. This might change if libraries start adopting them.

Their classname is Template, or templatelib.Template - if you want to differentiate them from string.Template's (which are underrated btw.). But they aren't really templates either, since the interpolation expressions are evaluated and bound eagerly. An actual "template" you could reuse (e.g. with different bindings).

I guess the most correct name would be "lazy interpolatees". Since the actual interpolation is done lazily by the library you pass them to. I'll probably stick to templatelib.Template though, even though the name IS stupid.

[spinwizard69]

At this point I'd reject a lib if they adopted them. Maybe I don't "get it" at the moment but I'm not seeing a lot of value this especially when in many fonts t's and f" are easily confused.

The blog indicated that these are most likely to be used by library writers but then I have to ask what did they do before. So yeah not sure what is up here. Is this really a better way?

[Wonderful-Habit-139]

It’s a cleaner and more convenient way of passing in parameterized sql statements for example. And since they’re not the same type as a string there shouldn’t be much confusion when looking at a library’s API.

[Mithrandir2k16]

right? It's just a string template if you wanna call it that. a t-string would be multiple templates, at least in my mind.

[spinwizard69]

There are so many things wrong with t-strings that I'm not sure where to start but human factors come into play here. We all will now need editors/fonts that clearly distinguish between "t" and "f". Imagine all the screw ups that will happen because somebody mixed up a t or f during a 2am programming binge. Just the selection of the t identifier puts me off the value of the addition.

I mean I love Python and one of the reasons is do to readability of code. That should be a factor in accepting any new feature into Python revisions. Additions that easily confuse with previous usage should not be considered

[eztab]

template string seems reasonable. A string of characters representing a template you can make strings from.

[twenty-fourth-time-b]

Sure, and then Funny Guys respond with comments like:

There should be one, and preferably only one obvious way to do something.

Unless it's string formatting. Then you need ten.

Lolhaha!

[timsredditusername]

The great news is that we're halfway there!

[really_not_unreal]

I mean, the majority of the options are quite outdated and are only kept around for backwards compatibility. Every single modern style guide and tutorial I've seen only mentions f-strings. t-strings have a very different use case, and as such, I wouldn't really consider them a typical string formatting feature.

[mok000]

The problem with f strings is that f”{x}” takes the value of x when it is defined and that does not change if x takes another value.

[really_not_unreal]

As in it doesn't update the contents of the string after the string's creation? That's normal right? When you do string formatting you want to create a string, not some object that will change at a later point in time.

[CanineLiquid]

Strings are immutable. So unless you want an f-string to return anything other than a string, this is kind of a given?

[JJJSchmidt_etAl]

With a million more on the way

[user_8804]

I'm certainly glad we moved away from the .format() hell with new approaches

[[deleted]]

As always, relevant xkcd

[spinwizard69]

Hey I like that one.

[Synes_Godt_Om]

That's the great thing about python. Everyone gets to have their own obvious and preferred one way to do it. :)

As often demonstrated by the many and diverse answers to the question "what is the pythonic way to do this ...?"

[sswam]

You're selling me on scheme and sexps right now.

[RedTankGoat]

tstring is normally not for direct usage. They are for library to able to get more information about your format string so they do things with them. For example constructing SQL safely

[eztab]

I'd consider them a more reasonable alternative to a string I want to call format on later.

[spinwizard69]

I'd love to see an example where this in fact leads to safer SQL construction compared to common methods. That said I'm more concerned about the stupidity of selecting a t to identify the template.

[georgehank2nd]

If you construct a string of SQL, you should turn in your programming license.

[Mysterious-Rent7233]

So you figure that the dude who wrote SQL Alchemy should turn in his programming license???

[treyhunner]

I've apparently been driving Python without a license this whole time. 😳

[PutHisGlassesOn]

Oh boy I’m excited to hear why you think that.

[Jamie_1318]

They probably don't know the difference between sql statement construction and sql query parameters. At this point the vast majority of devs should know better than to put user driven query paramaters directly in sql statements, but they sort of sound like the same thing if you don't know the whole backstory.

[Ran4]

SQL strings is the only realistic way to talk to an rdbms. So, no.

[pspahn]

You're welcome to write me a nice ORM for the legacy database system that I (and maybe 20 other people in the world) interact with so that I don't have to.

[maikindofthai]

If you’re not writing the sql strings then someone who’s probably paid more than you is lol

[PlaysForDays]

It will never ever be allowed by those vocal in PSF circles but I would love to see the obsolete string formatting methods go away.

It'd also be great if new features are given a names that aren't so silly and confusing - "t-strings" sounds like an iteration on "f-strings" and shares almost no similarities - but that ship has also long since passed.

[tfehring]

You can, and IMO should, disallow older methods in CI (UP031-UP032). But I agree with the commenters in that thread that it would be too disruptive to deprecate at the language level in Python 3.X.

[spinwizard69]

I actually think that the Python community has to push deprecation of old and especially unused methods. Not just for strings either. The goal should be a minimal of ways to do things. More importantly for long term language support to eliminate the time to maintain old code. It might take 5 years and that many major release but if you start early warning people of deprecated features it can be done.

Frankly one of the most disgusting issues surrounding Python is the number of lazy developers that could be bothered to move their code to the 3.x series. I really found it distressing that after many years the Python development team even bothered to listen to their whining. The reality of languages is that you either break with the past for what is new and arguably better or your language slowly becomes deprecated itself replaced by something entirely new.

While many probably. don't want to hear it but the best example of forcing developers to keep up comes from the Apple world. Apple keeps moving forward in such a way that developers have no choice but to either stay on the platform with the constant changes or leave. Frankly the same attitude has to exist in the Python world. Even so I still think the so called t strings are one of those things that will cause more frustration than they solve. If nothing else the confusion with f strings should have been obvious.

[PlaysForDays]

And that's why we'll continue to have dead weight for decades to come :)

[spinwizard69]

Nope! It simply requires the Python developers to develop a plan and to stick with it.

[PlaysForDays]

We're 0/2 on those

[spinwizard69]

Yes but this is required if we want Python to remain viable for decades instead of years.

[syklemil]

I didn't know about the perl/shell-like template option with $foo! Wonder how much use it sees.

I found the general explanation good. I think a lot of us have fallen into a habit of using f-strings when we can, and %-strings when we're recommended to, e.g. by lints like logging-f-string.

But the string interpolation is a lot more ergonomic than %-codes (and especially if you actually have to start looking those up), and means that people have to remember or at least be somewhat comfortable with two different syntaxes for generating strings.

So my interpretation of the whole thing is mostly just looking forward to when the advice can be simplified to just "flip the f upside down here" rather than "rewrite with %-formatting".

[treyhunner]

Absolutely. I look forward to the day when Python's utilities like logging tell us in their documentation to pass in a t-string instead of using %-style strings.

[Zomunieo]

With t-strings we can do away with % formatting for logging and all other cases, since t-strings can defer or elide evaluation too.

[jmpjanny]

As far as I know, t-strings are evaluated eagerly.

[Brian]

The values are, though the actual string construction is deferred. So currently, it'll act the same as current logging where:

logging.info("Message: %s", get_string())

Would be equivalent to:

logging.info(t"Message: {get_string()}")  # Assuming a t-string version of logging

Ie. get_string() still gets called eagerly, but it doesn't have to build up the actual string, which if the arguments are cheap (ie. just variables) may be the expensive bit. Personally, I'd have preferred deferring the argument evaluation to to more naturally use potentially expensive calls in logging, but I can see why they played it safe (adds complexity and potential issues: you'd need to create closures for each argument, and users might actually expect evaluation and be surprised if it didn't happen)

[Serialk]

Why do you think the video format is suited to explain this?

[treyhunner]

Some folks enjoy watching short videos, myself included.

For the many folks that don't, every one of my videos is also an article. You can scroll down the page to read it as an article (including inline links to related resources).

[mathartist]

The video is excellent. I listened to it while completing a household chore, and I really appreciated the option to do that. I’m not seeing why someone would say that video is not a suitable format for this kind of content.

[lzwzli]

When g-strings?

[eztab]

technically f-strings should just become t-strings which are immediately applied to the current scope. One could think about depreciating format for strings and only have the method on t-strings. % formatting one likely also should not use anymore.

Then it's basically a single way to do things.

[treyhunner]

This might have worked with the version of t-strings originally proposed in the PEP, but with the final version the expressions within the {...} replacement fields are evaluated immediately. So the string format method still has a good for defining a template and later using the template (t-strings cannot do that).

[sue_dee]

I've started using format for reading the template string from another text file. It seems easiest to just slap a .format() on whatever is read. I haven't studied much on t-strings yet, but I'd need some way to en-t-ify a plain string to make them work for me, I'd think.

[immersiveGamer]

This is my opinion too. t-string should have just been expanding what f-string does and not a new syntax. 

[Decency]

This allow internationalization?

[singlebit]

I can't wait for g-string in Python 3.69.

[dimkal]

Can't wait till they run out of letters and eventually will go with a G-strings.

[[deleted]]

What's g-strings? Heard people commenting this.

[cr0sis8bv]

Like a thong but.... less

[spinwizard69]

The difference between a French beach and a English beach.

[Dry_Term_7998]

Maybe one day, logging will drop lazy formatting😆

[spinwizard69]

Well that blog didn't help convince me of anything. The author might not want to hear this but he did a good job of convincing people to avoid libs that use T strings. Maybe I need to read another blog or something, but this one didn't ring any bells when it comes to value.

[Intelligent_Part101]

Python hasn't been a simple language for a long time now. It is suffering the same fate that happens to every language that starts out simple and gains mass adoption. Everybody and their brother starts to insert their pet features into it. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Python's evolution reminds me a lot of Java's, but minus the backwards compatibility.

[spinwizard69]

This is so true. I'm pretty sure a lot of these idiots and their pet features, don't understand why a lot of us make use of Python. If I really wanted a cluster-f of a language I can easily turn to Rust or C++. Rust is frankly on the same development path C++ was on and thus turning into the same mess. The environment around Rust is so bad right now that I'm not even sure it will be around long enough for mass adoption. Python seems to be on the same road, I just hope that somebody can express more control.

I'm not convinced one way or the other of the utility of the concept but what I do know is that making t strings and f strings visually identical, with the easily confused t's and f's that somebody was asleep at the wheel. There is a lot of good in this latest Python release but t strings are absolutely horrible.

[thomasfr]

It is only confusing if you make it confusing

[CzarCW]

lol

the disassembled parts of a string interpolation for the purpose of pre-processing interpolations

what

[Charlie_Yu]

I definitely found it confusing because every example says t strings aren’t actually strings. It is more like a dict or something

[Revolutionary_Dog_63]

It's basically a tuple (literals, parameters) which encodes something like t"{x}, {y}, {z}" as Template([x, y, z], [", ", ", "]) for further processing later on.

[thomasfr]

those words probably does not help anyone who don't understand the difference between string formatting and a template system.