On 9/5/05, Calvin Spealman <ironfroggy at gmail.com> wrote: > There is a lot of debate over this issue, obviously. Now, I think > getting rid of the print statement can lead to ugly code, because a > write function would be called as an expression, so where we'd once > have prints on their own lines, that wouldn't be the case anymore, and > things could get ugly. Sounds like FUD to me. Lots of functions/methods exist that *could* be embedded in expressions, and never are. Or if they are, there's actually a good reason, and then being a mere function (instead of a statement) would actually be helpful. Anyway, why would it be important that prints are on their own line where so many other important actions don't have that privilege? > But, print is a little too inflexible. > What about adding a special name __print__, which the print statement > would call? It should be looked up as a local first, then global. > Thus, different parts of a program can define their own __print__, > without changing everyone else's stdout. The Python web people would > love that. Too many underscores; __print__ screams "internal use, don't mess" at you. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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