[Python-Dev] Replacement for print in Python 3.0

Barry Warsaw barry at python.org
Mon Sep 5 04:17:25 CEST 2005

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:06, James Y Knight wrote:

> No, we certainly don't /need/ printf(), as is well proven by its  
> current absence. Having the operation of printing and the operation  
> of string formatting be separated is good, because it means you can  
> easily do either one without the other. I don't understand why you  
> want to combine these two operations. If it's % you object to, then  
> propose a fix for the actual problem: e.g. a "fmt" function for  
> formatting strings. (Which I would also object to, because I don't  
> believe % is a problem). But proposing "printf" just adds  
> complication for no purpose. It leaves % as a "problem" and adds a  
> new builtin which duplicates existing functionality.

You can definitely argue about keeping formatting and print separate,
but I think Guido and others have explained the problems with %.  Also,
we already have precedence in format+print in the logging package.  I
actually think the logging provides a nice, fairly to use interface that
print-ng can be modeled on.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20050904/87571f50/attachment.pgp

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list