python 3's adoption

Alf P. Steinbach alfps at
Wed Jan 27 22:50:28 CET 2010

* Adam Tauno Williams:
> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 18:52 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> * Steve Holden:
>>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> The main problem with the incompatibility is for porting code, not for
>>>> writing code from scratch. It's also a problem wrt. learning the
>>>> language. And I see no good reason for it: print can't really do more,
>>>> or less, or more conveniently (rather, one has to write a bit more now
>>>> for same effect).
>>> Of course it can do more: it allows you to layer your own print
>>> functionality into the system much more easily than you could with the
>>> print statement.
>> Yeah, point. Very minor though. :-)
> So you get to determine that?

I'm sorry, I don't find that question meaningful.

> I'd call the whole print thing (a) a legitimate change to increase
> consistency and (b) a fairly minor porting nuisance since application
> code [as in big-chunks-o-code] almost never contains print statements.
> I know at least two shops that have scripts they run on all Python code,
> prior to it entering production, to ensure there are no print
> statements.

Considering that in your opinion "application code [as in big-chunks-o-code] 
almost never contains print statements", is the point about being able to 
replace print, as you see it, more than a minor point?

Cheers & sorry for not grokking your question,

- Alf

More information about the Python-list mailing list