RetroSearch Browse

Thu Sep 1 21:39:51 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/055989.html

> And good riddance! The print statement harks back to ABC and even
> (unvisual) Basic. Out with it!

Guido,

After reviewing the PEP 3000 notes, I can find no justification there
for removing "print" other than your statement here -- that it has
served honorably and well in many programming languages for many
years, a curious reason for abandoning it.  There's a pointer to
Python Regrets, but that document contains no justification for the
change.  (Actually, using pointers to Powerpoint slides to
explain/justify anything is, er... -- what's a polite euphemism for "a
sign of a weak mind"? :-)

I agree that "print" is already a bit peculiar, but so what?  If we
wanted Scheme, we'd be programming in Scheme, not Python.

The only other parts of PEP 3000 I take issue with are the removal of
"reduce" (a little) and "lambda" (a bit more seriously).  I use reduce
a lot, but it's easy enough to cobble together oneself, given the
changes in Python over the last 10 years.

Bill

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/055989.html below:

[Python-Dev] Replacement for print in Python 3.0