3 ms·

Oh, I'm pretty sure I didn't understand your example and am probably missing something obvious. That's why I'm here asking dumb questions! I think I'm followin

• ratorx 2y ago
  Added example to parent comment.
  • itishappy 2y ago
    Thanks mate! (BTW: Indenting code with four spaces makes HN format it like code.) So the thing I'm still not getting from your example is allowing the template itself to be customized. evil = "<script>alert('evil')</script>" template1 = t"<p>{evil}</p>" template2 = t"<h1>{evil}</h1>" html(template1) html(template2)
    • ratorx 2y ago
      template1 is a function that takes in a parameter evil (with a SanitisedString type that wraps a regular str) and returns the fully expanded str. It is implemented by just returning an f-string equivalent to the t-string in your example. Same with template2. Using the SanitisedString type forces the user to explicitly call a sanitiser function that returns a SanitisedString and prevents them from passing in an unsanitised str.
      • itishappy 2y ago
        You're just handing off responsibility for sanitization to the user instead of the library author. With t-strings the rendering function is responsible for sanitization, and users can pass unrendered templates to it. With f-strings there's no concept of an unrendered template, it just immediately becomes a string. Whoever is creating the template therefore has to be careful what they put in it.