end of print = lower productivity ?
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
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
> 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.
More information about the Python-list