Why Turn "Print" into "Print()"????

[Sverker Nilsson]

print a statement

let's make it import() if() (C freaks) except() else() what else()

It was just convenient to not have to write those parenthesis

I agree with the OP, of course if you wrote my post after I began look
into this

Parentheses for the people..

I mean, it's not that.... making it a function?

Well I'd have suggested, make a function and call it write()

The name print is a misnormer any case

So it keeps a misleading name and make it a function, thinks it is a
cleanup

Just Add a write() builtin function so can we use that if we want a
function

but keep the print statement, the import statement, the if statement,
the for statement...

Dont make they functions. Or is this just to throw us out?

S...


On May 26, 12:20 pm, Ulrich Eckhardt <eckha... at satorlaser.com> wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
> > On May 26, 1:37 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-... at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
>
> >> The differences aren't so fundamental or important: it's not an entirely
> >> new language, just some ugly old things are being removed or changed in
> >> incompatible ways (at *some* time it was supposed to happen - but could
> >> not happen on the 2.x series which has to remain backwards compatible)
> >> Also, Python 3.0 will be released simultaneously with 2.6, and there will
> >> be other 2.x releases. Python 2 won't magically disappear from Earth, I
> >> don't think Linux distros will come with Python 3.0 by default anytime
> >> soon (perhaps not before 3.1).
>
> > But I'd read that Python 3 is very different in many important ways.
>
> Yes, and that is the reason it is version 3.x instead of another 2.x. Moving
> to version 3 signals that some changes were done that are _not_ backward
> compatible and not even intended to.
>
> > I read it right there on the Py3K site!  I can't make sense of how,
> > why, even what, exactly, but that's not a misimpression on my part,
> > I certain nonetheless...it's not just cosmetic changes but important
> > ones pertaining to a sort of "linguistic logic" I gather....
>
> Well, cosmetic or important is always in the eye of the beholder. I
> personally would say that they are important cosmetic changes. You don't
> get any new features or a more Touring-complete language suddenly, but it
> will be much more consistent because it doesn't have to maintain wrong
> decisions of the past, like making 'print' a separate statement when a
> function would do.
>
> >> So learning Python with a book targeted to 2.5 isn't a waste of time -
> >> not at all.
>
> > Well, I will be learning Python from the excellent materials available
> > online, to be sure, but a book that I spend money for, well, I have
> > "higher standards" for it, you know, one of which is that it doesn't
> > get superseded so soon!
>
> As already pointed out, Python 2 will not suddenly cease to exist and
> knowledge about it won't suddenly be worthless either. I guess it will take
> a few years until the use of Python 3 supercedes that of Python 2.
>
> Uli
>
> --
> Sator Laser GmbH
> Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932