This was considered and rejected: https://peps.python.org/pep-0750/#arbitrary-string-literal-p...

How would this be different from a function sql() that operates on one of these new t-strings?

The syntactic sugar of changing it from sql(t"...") doesn't seem particularly valuable. The novel thing about t-strings is that they change the parsing at compile-time.

> The syntactic sugar of changing it from sql(t"...") doesn't seem particularly valuable.

It's valuable because:

- IDEs could then syntax-highlight SQL inside of SQL strings and HTML inside of HTML strings

- You can't accidentally pass an HTML string to your SQL library

It’s different from a function the same way f”” is different from f(“”) and t”” is different from t(“”)

There’s nothing stopping you from building a Python function that parses a string looking for {} and then searching globals for those variables. And you can extend that to also do some code execution and formatting.

To me the real sugar of f-strings is that the editor knows that it’s a template and not just a string. Expanding this to having SQL and regex syntax highlighting, linting and code formatting inside my Python code is a pretty cool prospect.

It wouldn't be different, but it would be more convenient because we no longer have to count the number of %s, you'd put the variable inline.

That's... already the case of t-strings?

Yes, that's my point. The GP was already talking about a t-string.

dmurray was comparing a hypothetical sql"..." with sql(t"..."). There are no %s either way.

This is how JavaScript does it with tagged template literals.

Your sql there would just be a function that receives the array of strings/values and returns whatever.

This is what JS does with tagged template literals. https://github.com/dsego/sql_tag