RetroSearch Browse

Fri Sep 2 06:40:42 CEST 2005 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056023.html

On 9/1/05, Bill Janssen <janssen at parc.com> wrote:
> > Providing you can live with adding a pair of parentheses to that, you can
> > have:
> >
> >    def print(*args):
> >       sys.stdout.write(' '.join(args) + '\n')
> >
> > I think the language would be cleaner if it lacked this weird exception for
> > `print`.
> 
> Charles,
> 
> I agree that it would be cleaner.  I just don't think cleanliness is
> all that interesting -- usefulness trumps it every time.  And if

Talking about cleanliness, I'm not sure which is cleaner::

  print >> sys.stderr, "This is a long sentence that I " \
        "had to cut in two."

  print("This is a long sentence that I "
        "had to cut in two.", stream=sys.stderr)

Sometimes I'll do this because I don't like the backslashes::

  print >> sys.stderr, ("This is a long sentence that "
                        "Had to cut in two.")

Also, I find the ">>" syntax has always bothered me.  
I find it useful but so out-of-place in the language.

+1 for removing the print statement.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056023.html below:

[Python-Dev] Replacement for print in Python 3.0