>>>>> "PP" == Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> writes:
>> have PP> "@" in it? Forget about @, let's use >> instead.
PP> Okay, but we're still inventing a new token that doesn't exist
PP> otherwise in the language.
No we're not! From token.h:
#define RIGHTSHIFT 35
PP> There are two reasons I oppose this.
PP> 1. On the one hand, we are making the print statement even
PP> more of a special "syntax region" than it already is. In my
PP> opinion that's newbie *unfriendly*. They learn how ">>" works
PP> in one place and then when they look around for somewhere else
PP> to use it, they won't find it. I think that that is profoundly
PP> unpythonic.
Where would people look to use >> in this sense elsewhere?
PP> 2. On the other hand, I oppose special case hacks *in general*
PP> because when you solve a problem in one place, it doesn't
PP> solve it elsewhere. The benefits of print are:
| * no requirement for parens
| * newline by default
| * easy string coercion and interpolation
| * less thinking about whitepspace
PP> Okay, but what about when I want these features elsewhere in
PP> the Python language? At least the last three should should be
PP> available everywhere in Python.
Don't these things mostly crop up in printing, in one form or
another. I can imagine you might want to use something like #3.5 or
#4 when, e.g. building a string to be used as a regex, but in that
case, you already have #3.5 and #4, and probably don't want #2. (We
won't even touch #1 in that context :).
-Barry
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