source | all docs for version 0.8.4 | all versions | oilshell.org

Warning: Work in progress! Leave feedback on Zulip or Github if you'd like this doc to be updated.

Oil Expressions vs. Python

Oil's expression language borrows heavily from Python.

In fact, it literally started with Python's Grammar/Grammar file.

Literal Syntax

• String literals are like shell string literals.
  • Single quoted - raw or c.
  • Double Quoted
  • \u{3bc} instead of \uhhhh and \UHHHHHHHH
• Singleton tuples like 42, are disallowed, in favor of the more explicit tup(42).
• Dicts: come from JavaScript, with unquoted keys, and "punning".
• lists, ints, floats: the same

Additions:

• Lists with unquoted words: %(one two three)

Operators

Oil doesn't overload operators as much:

• a + b is for addition, while a ++ b is for concatenation.
• a < b is only for numbers. cmp() could be for strings.

No "accidentally quadratic"

• No in for array/list membership. Only dict membership.
• The ++= operator on strings doesn't exist

Other:

• I removed the 1:5:2 syntax because 0::2 conflicts with module::name. This might have been unnecessary.
• Egg expressions and ~ rather than the re module.

Semantic Differences

• Iterating over a string yields code points, not one-character strings. s[i] returns an integer code point ("rune").

Significant Newlines

• {} is different than [] and ()

Additions

• d->key

Related Links

• Issue 835: Make expression language compatible with Python