[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.
-Barry
-------------- 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