Skip to content

Support DefaultInterpolatedStringHandler #1108

Open

Description

@vzarytovskii

Support DefaultInterpolatedStringHandler

the suggestion was originally posted in https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp (dotnet/fsharp#12069) by @xperiandri

I propose we support DefaultInterpolatedStringHandler in F#.

The existing way of approaching this problem in F# is using default interpolated strings.

Pros and Cons

The advantages of making this adjustment to F# are

  • Unification with what Roslyn has.
  • Faster interpolated strings.

The disadvantages of making this adjustment to F# are ...

Extra information

Estimated cost (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL): L

Affidavit

Please tick this by placing a cross in the box:

  • This is not a question (e.g. like one you might ask on stackoverflow) and I have searched stackoverflow for discussions of this issue
  • I have searched both open and closed suggestions on this site and believe this is not a duplicate
  • This is not something which has obviously "already been decided" in previous versions of F#. If you're questioning a fundamental design decision that has obviously already been taken (e.g. "Make F# untyped") then please don't submit it.

Please tick all that apply:

  • This is not a breaking change to the F# language design

For Readers

If you would like to see this issue implemented, please click the 👍 emoji on this issue. These counts are used to generally order the suggestions by engagement.

Activity

  1. cartermp commented on Jan 4, 2022

    @cartermp
    Member

    This is handy in code instrumentation scenarios (e.g., OpenTelemetry) where you want as little overhead as possible but still want to do a little string formatting for messages on constructs (e.g., a small structured Span Event on a TelemetrySpan).

  2. dsyme commented on Jan 4, 2022

    @dsyme
    Collaborator

    Yeah, it's solving some real problems. But my goodness I find the adhoc nature of these C# solutions to these problems really problematic (e.g. the attributes on parameters).

    As an aside, one thing I'm aware of is that there's a similarity between computed list expressions and computed string expressions (aka string interpolations)

    • computed list expressions ideally write imperatively to a list collector
    • computed string expressions ideally write imperatively to a string collector

    It would kind of be nice if there was more symmetry to this, e.g. why can't we use for loops in string interpolations, e.g.

    $"""abc {for x in xs do yield x; yield ";"} def"""

    or implicit yield:

    $"""abc {for x in xs do x; ";"} def"""

    and conditionals

    $"""abc {if today() then header} def"""

    and pattern matching

    $"""abc {match day with Monday -> header | _ -> footer } def"""

    Anyway it totally makes sense to emit interpolated strings to a collector, and to sort out the conditional nature of the emit.

  3. realparadyne commented on Jan 11, 2022

    @realparadyne

    Could this become an interop pain point (or even a blocking issue) if people start making libraries with methods that make use of custom InterpolatedStringHandlers for some parameters but no longer expose plain String alternative overloads?

    I would love to see further development of F# string interpolation for higher performance, greater flexibility (I've already seen a C# attempt at using a custom handler to invert it into a scanf() type of function) or even just some more optimisation for simple cases e.g.

    $"""value: {stringValue}"""

    Which doesn't need all the full string formatting but just some fast concatenation of two strings.

  4. Tarmil commented on Jan 11, 2022

    @Tarmil

    We could even imagine full-blown type-provider-like code generation that would use the string fragments and quotations of interpolated values at compile time to generate arbitrary code, not necessarily calls to specific methods on a builder like InterpolatedStringHandler does. For example parsing HTML at compile time to compile something like this:

    html $"""<div id="test">Hello, {name}!</div>"""

    into the equivalent of Fable/WebSharper/Bolero/etc function calls:

    div [ attr.id "test" ] [ text "Hello, "; text name; text "!" ]

    In fact, I can say for sure that Bolero would be able to provide better performance using the former than it currently does with the latter. Of course this would be an XXL dev effort 😄

  5. cartermp commented on Jan 11, 2022

    @cartermp
    Member

    @realparadyne

    Could this become an interop pain point

    yes and no. Yes, insofar as there will be new methods in .NET 6 (not many) that take on in as a parameter, and an F# consumer would need to construct an explicit instant of DefaultInterpolatedStringHandler as a parameter. But the answer is a "no" insofar as no existing APIs are being changed to use this instead of string parameters.

  6. baronfel commented on Jul 11, 2023

    @baronfel
    Contributor

    There are ~1000 uses of DefaultInterpolatedStringHandler on github code search, and the areas I see commonly are:

    • logging
    • http frameworks
    • tracing/telemetry
    • Game engines?
    • generated API clients that want to be as low-impact as possible

    The runtime usages are also very low-level on StreamWriter et al, so writing to all kinds of streams could become more performant with the single feature.

  7. Xyncgas commented on Oct 18, 2023

    @Xyncgas

    Could this become an interop pain point (or even a blocking issue)

    Blazor kinda figured out mixing C# with html

    html $"""

    Hello, {name}!
    """

    That's awesome, I can make a lot of html using this approach, each generated functionally presenting information of their domain, I put them all in the same page on my website, regenerate functionally and in parallel

  8. vzarytovskii commented on Nov 9, 2023

    @vzarytovskii
    Author

    Put an approval on it, since there's a general consensus that addition makes sense. Needs an rfc though.

  9. charlesroddie commented on Jan 9, 2024

    @charlesroddie

    Some benchmarks for
    HW: let world = "world" in $"hello {world}" with current and some alternative implementations
    and
    TT: let two = "two" in $"{two} + {2} = {4}"

    https://github.com/charlesroddie/BenchmarksFsharp/tree/InterpolatedStrings

    Method Mean Error StdDev Gen0 Allocated
    InterpolatedStringCurrentHW 84.04 ns 1.337 ns 1.044 ns 0.0219 184 B
    StringFormatHW 37.14 ns 0.545 ns 0.483 ns 0.0057 48 B
    StringBuilderHW 19.99 ns 0.430 ns 0.442 ns 0.0181 152 B
    DefaultInterpolatedStringHandlerHW 41.65 ns 0.713 ns 0.596 ns 0.0057 48 B
    InterpolatedStringCurrentTT 195.90 ns 3.704 ns 3.465 ns 0.0458 384 B
    StringFormatTT 81.88 ns 1.578 ns 1.549 ns 0.0124 104 B
    StringBuilderTT 28.69 ns 0.626 ns 1.191 ns 0.0181 152 B
    DefaultInterpolatedStringHandlerTT 49.24 ns 0.988 ns 0.876 ns 0.0057 48 B

    Overall StringBuilder is the fastest, but DefaultInterpolatedStringHandler allocates the least. There appear to be performance costs of DefaultInterpolatedStringHandler relative to StringBuilder, at least for the typical case where custom formats are not needed.

    I think a move to StringBuilder would be a good first step and would get the majority of the benefit.

    Any move to DefaultInterpolatedStringHandler would build on that.

    DefaultInterplolatedStringHandler is also dotnet6 so there would need to be a fallback implementation with StringBuilder anyway for netstandard2.0, or alternatively DefaultInterplolatedStringHandler can be a replacement when FSharp no longer supports netstandard2.0.

  10. realparadyne commented on Jan 9, 2024

    @realparadyne

    If it could iteratively optimise the interpolation then constant strings could be interpolated in at compile time, reducing the number of elements to concatenate. Speaking of which, if at the end all that's required is to concatenate some constant strings and some dynamically produced strings (up to 4 I think?) there are a bunch of overloads to String.Concat() that should be faster than using StringBuilder and only allocate for the resulting string.

  11. kerams commented on Nov 25, 2025

    @kerams

    Agree that a StringBuilder version is a great improvement already, and thus a fine starting point. One thing your benchmarks don't make use of (because it doesn't matter for such short strings) is the fact that we can typically estimate the minimum capacity the builder needs to allocate, sometimes even the exact length, which will give us ever so slightly more performance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions