end of print = lower productivity ?

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Mon Dec 1 21:45:58 CET 2008


Alan G Isaac wrote:
> I actually trust that the developers had good
> reasons for this change, but I think it is
> silly to argue that it is costless.

Guido ever argued that.

> The question is, what is the cost-benefit trade-off?

Uniformity of language, flexibility, and removal of the >> hack that 
Guido hated after adding.  Check the pydev discussions.

> One obvious cost is that working at the
> interpreter prompt is now slightly less
> convenient.

But neither 'print' nor 'print()' is needed at the interpreter prompt.

 > Just because the cost is small
> does not mean it should not be offset by a
> benefit.
> 
> I am less sympathetic to the suggestion that
> there is an inconvenience when working in
> an editor, but clearly some people find one.

That is the only time 'print' or 'print()' is needed.

I find it a minor nuisance also, but then I should learn to touch-type 
() better anyway for all the other uses.

> My preferred transition would have been to
> retain the `print` statement but add a `printf`
> function (i.e., the new `print` function).
> Presumably many would find this a repulsive
> redundancy and a needless maintenance headache.

Yes.

tjr




More information about the Python-list mailing list