-1. I'd like it so that (given a suitable set of imports) if you typed back to the interpreter what it printed at you, you get the same thing back again.
print(x) 42 print(42) 42 print(y) None print(None) None print(z) foo print(foo) foo
Ping's proposal would goes against this:
print(x) foo() print(foo()) 42 print(Splat) class Splat print(class Splat) SyntaxError: invalid syntax
I'm expecting that in most cases there is enough redundancy in the name that you'll know what kind of thing it is. And if you want to know for sure, continue to use repr() -- or, at the interactive prompt, just omit the print() call, since the interactive interpreter automatically calls repr() on your expression. --Guido On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Ka-Ping Yee <python@zesty.ca> wrote:
Hi there,
I get that repr() is supposed to be the precise representation and str() is intended more to be friendly than precise. My concern with the proposal is just that this:
>>> print x foo
...doesn't actually feel that friendly to me. I want to know that it's *probably* a function or *probably* a class, the same way that today, when I see:
>>> print x biscuit
>>> print y [1, 2, 3]
I can guess that x is *probably* a string and y is *probably* a list (e.g. because I know I'm not working with any custom objects whose __str__ returns those things).
It would create a slightly higher mental burden (or slightly higher probability of human error) if, when I see:
>>> print x Splat
...I have to remember that x might be a string or a function or a class.
I'd just like some kind of visual hint as to what it is. Like:
>>> print x foo()
or:
>>> print x function foo
or:
>>> print x function foo(a, b)
or:
>>> print x class Bar
In fact "function foo(a, b)" would actually be rather useful in a lot of situations, and I would argue, friendlier than "foo".
--Ping
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)