Pep 3105: the end of print?

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:07:02 -0600, Edward K Ream wrote:

>>> That's the proof.  Can you find a flaw in it?
>> No, but it doesn't matter. There's no particular reason why you have to
>> write "print (whatever)" in your code. What you need is *some function*
>> that is capable of duplicating the functionality of print,
> 
> Precisely wrong.

Are you trying to say that the name "print" is more important to you
than the functionality? 

If not, then I have no idea why you say I'm wrong.


> The title of this thread is 'the end of print', and the 
> whole point of my comments is that spelling matters.

That might be the point you are trying to make, but you haven't succeeded.


> I would have absolutely no objection to the pep if it specified some other 
> name for an 'official' print function.  Pick any name, preferably longer 
> than two characters, that does not conflict with either an existing global 
> function or module.

Huh? Now you're just not making sense. If Python 3 dropped the print
statement and replaced it with official_print_function(), how would that
help you in your goal to have a single code base that will run on both
Python 2.3 and Python 3, while still using print?

In software development there is a common saying: "Good, Fast, Cheap --
Pick any two". The same holds here:

Keep the print name;
Keep the print functionality;
Keep a single code base.

Pick any two.



-- 
Steven.