Ryan Morshead

In retrospect, I don't know why "tag function" was fine to my eye, but "tag string" was not, since they're effectively the same grammatical structure. Your original noun adjunct naming...

Also, while we're on the topic of naming, where did "Thunk" come from? I've been assuming it's a combination of "tuple" and "chunk", but I haven't seen any explicit reference...

It seems a little hyperbolic to assume that's how people will react as I think that could be true of almost any change to the language. But regardless, this syntax...

> Would it be compatible with your work, to recommend editors to syntax highlight strings... Typically I think this sort of thing ends up being handled by plugins. For example,...

> hopeful that this all lands... I'm in a bit of a lull at work right now so I think I may have some time to work on this over...

Unfortunately no, this is very much a work in progress. At the moment, we don't have a complete draft proposal to share and get feedback on. I'm not super familiar...

At the moment it's @jimbaker and myself with support from @gvanrossum who, in addition to providing feedback and ideas, has contributed a [branch of CPython](https://github.com/gvanrossum/cpython/tree/tag-strings) with an initial implementation of...

> it's not backwards compatible. There's always the old type comments: ```python my_html = "Hello, World!" # type: Annotated[str, "html"] ``` Not quite as slick, but I'm pretty sure editors...

To clarify, I wasn't proposing `html @ f'{name}'` as a competing syntax. I chose that purely because I was interested in using tag strings in [ReactPy](https://github.com/reactive-python/reactpy) before the PEP itself...

@pauleveritt, I'm happy to hop on discord.