Please bear with me if this has already been stated, or if I ought to be directing this to the wiki instead of to python-dev at this point. I've been trying to follow this whole discussion but have only gotten as far as last Saturday. Two things: First of all, I wanted to encourage Guido. There have been lots of people objecting to "fixing" the print statement, but I for one agree that it's a wart which should be addressed if it can be done elegantly. I'm just not speaking up because others (particularly Guido) have already said most of what I am thinking and I don't want to clutter the discussion with "me too!"'s. And one thing which (as far as I've read) _IS_ a new suggestion. I agree that a new built-in function ought to be named 'print'. This poses problems for those who want to write code NOW that runs in Python 2.x (for large values of x) which will also run in 3.0. We could satisfy both people if in Python 2.x we introduced a built-in function named "print30" (for Python 3.0) with the intended new behavior. People could start coding now using the "print30" builtin. When Python 3.0 was released, 'print' would no longer be a keyword, and both 'print' and 'print30' would be built-ins that both refered to the same function. Sure, it's a tiny bit of backward compatibility cruft to have a second name for the builtin, but it may be worth it because the ability to write in the "Python 3.0 style" (all new-style classes, only raise proper exceptions, etc) in the 2.x series is a VERY useful feature. We want to handle the transition better than Perl. -- Michael Chermside