Tony Meyer wrote:
> [...]
>
>>maybe a few folks can go off and write up a PEP for a
>>print-replacement.
>
> [...]
>
>>I'm pulling out of the
>>discussion until I see a draft PEP.
>
>
> If there are two competing proposals, then the two groups write a PEP and
> counter-PEP and the PEPs duke it out. Is this still the case if proposal B
> is very nearly the status quo?
>
> IOW, would writing a "Future of the print statement in Python 3.0" counter
> PEP that kept print as a statement be appropriate? If not, other than
> python-dev posting (tiring out the poor summary guys <0.5 wink>), what is
> the thing to do?
Keeping print as a statement is certainly one of the options I'm considering,
so I don't think a counter-PEP is warranted just yet. There isn't even a PEP
to be a counter to - it's all still on the Wiki at the moment.
The more I play with it, the more I believe the part I have a problem with is
a weakness in the string formatting for iterables.
The point about not needing parentheses for conditionals where a lot of other
languages require them is a good one - I'm sure I write print statements
nearly as often as I write conditionals.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.blogspot.com
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