[Python-Dev] Replacement for print in Python 3.0
janssen at parc.com
Sun Sep 4 00:49:36 CEST 2005
> * Gratuitous breakage: IMO it's not gratuitous. The *extensions* to
> the print statement (trailing comma, >>stream) are ugly, and because
> it's all syntax, other extensions are hard to make. Had it been a
> function from the start it would have been much easier to add keyword
> args, for example.
So here's the summary of the arguments against: two style points
(trailing comma and >>stream) (from the man who approved the current
decorator syntax!), and it's hard to extend. (By the way, I agree that
the ">>" syntax is ugly, and IMO a bad idea in general. Shame the "@"
wasn't used instead. :-)
Seems pretty weak to me. Are there other args against?
What baffles me is that when I read through the rest of PEP 3000, I
agree with the other changes. But removing "print" sticks in my craw,
and there's no real justification for it. I just don't get it.
If someone said, "print" doesn't support a format argument as C printf
does, I'd say that's a strong argument. But an argument for extending
"print" once again, not junking it. Unless it was perhaps replaced
>>> printf @sys.stderr %"Must output %s at once!" "important message"
More information about the Python-Dev