On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 09:16:29AM +0300, Moshe Zadka wrote: > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > > >>>>> "GE" == Greg Ewing <greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> writes: > > GE> How about > > GE> print to myfile, x, y, z > > Not bad at all. Seems quite Pythonic to me. > print to myfile (print a newline on myfile) > print to, myfile (print to+" "+myfile to stdout) > Perl has similar syntax, and I always found it horrible. Agreed. It might be technically unambiguous, but I think it's too hard for a *human* to parse this correctly. The '>>' version might seem more C++ish and less pythonic, but it also stands out a lot more. The 'print from' statement could easily (and more consistently, IMHO ;) be written as 'print <<' (not that I like the 'print from' idea, though.) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4