RetroSearch Browse

Sun Sep 4 00:40:19 CEST 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056126.html

> I do hate having to write two parentheses -- it's more than the extra
> keystrokes.  It's that I have to use two shifted characters and I have
> to be sure to close the construct, which can be a PITA when the start of
> the function call is separated from the end by many lines.

> What I found is that while this can be a real annoyance for some code,
> there are some beneficial trade-offs that make this palatable...

> So for permanent code, I think it's a decent trade-off.  We lose
> something but we gain something.  I'll mourn the syntax highlighting
> loss (or end up hacking python-mode) but oh well.

Wouldn't it make sense then to replace the "print" statement with a
"printf" statement?  Then you'd get the formatting, and wouldn't have
to type the parentheses.  I don't see an argument for moving to a
function; indeed, there's an argument against.  What you want is a
fancier print.

Bill

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056126.html below:

[Python-Dev] Replacement for print in Python 3.0