gratuitous new features in 2.0

[Martijn Faassen]

Alex Martelli <alex at magenta.com> wrote:
> "Martijn Faassen" <m.faassen at vet.uu.nl> wrote in message
> news:8oc8si$dsg$1 at newshost.accu.uu.nl...
[snip]
>> I never thought the 'print' statement was a bad idea, myself. I do
>> think the >> addition to print isn't a very good idea. And it makes me
>> realise *now* that 'print' ought to have been a function all along. :)
>> Before this proposal, I didn't think so.

> I'm not sure whether "print ought to have been a function all along", in
> fact.  Maybe, maybe not.  It IS fractionally handy for the above-mentioned
> uses, after all.

So would a function have been, right?

> We need NOT deprecate print-as-a-statement to abhor the
> idea of extending its functionality to cases for which its appropriateness
> is low-to-nonexistent.

Oh, I agree. That was the point I was making, right? The realisation *now*
that if print had been a function all along would've avoided this hackish
addition is only a side-issue that I mentioned.

> Even if one dislikes the idea of print existing at all as a statement,
> extending its functionality would just be "throwing good money after
> bad".

I'm not quite sure who you are arguing with here. I mean, I don't dislike
the idea of print existing as a statement at all, and I do think extending
its functionality is not the best approach. I thought I said this in
my post. :)

>  But, if one DOES sort-of-like the statement, it need not follow
> that the statement's mission must be enlarged to make it able to output
> to a file, when that specific need (and others) are best served by a
> function (or method) even if the statement stays just as it is today.

As I said in my post, right? Are you summarizing me? :)

Regards,

Martijn
-- 
History of the 20th Century: WW1, WW2, WW3?
No, WWW -- Could we be going in the right direction?