Guido writes: > * Gratuitous breakage: IMO it's not gratuitous. The *extensions* to > the print statement (trailing comma, >>stream) are ugly, and because > it's all syntax, other extensions are hard to make. Had it been a > function from the start it would have been much easier to add keyword > args, for example. So here's the summary of the arguments against: two style points (trailing comma and >>stream) (from the man who approved the current decorator syntax!), and it's hard to extend. (By the way, I agree that the ">>" syntax is ugly, and IMO a bad idea in general. Shame the "@" wasn't used instead. :-) Seems pretty weak to me. Are there other args against? What baffles me is that when I read through the rest of PEP 3000, I agree with the other changes. But removing "print" sticks in my craw, and there's no real justification for it. I just don't get it. If someone said, "print" doesn't support a format argument as C printf does, I'd say that's a strong argument. But an argument for extending "print" once again, not junking it. Unless it was perhaps replaced with: >>> printf @sys.stderr %"Must output %s at once!" "important message" Bill
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