[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fredrik Python strings are character buffers with a known length, not
Fredrik null-terminated C strings. the CPython implementation
Fredrik guarantees that the character buffer has a trailing NULL
Fredrik character, but that's mostly to make it easy to
Remove the print statementI laughed until my sides hurt. Hello? Try
dating girls and talking to normal people, geek boys.
We scientists still use these for debugging. We never 'move on' very far
from the tutorial. The salient feature about print statements is that
they live to be put in
Paul F. Dubois wrote:
Remove the print statementI laughed until my sides hurt. Hello? Try
dating girls and talking to normal people, geek boys.
We scientists still use these for debugging. We never 'move on' very far
from the tutorial. The salient feature about print statements is that
On 9/2/05, Ron Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Jewett wrote:
Putting the spaces back in (without a format string) would
be even worse. Charles Cazabon's pointed out that it *could*
be as simple as
writeln(' '.join( ... ))
Why not just offer an addition method ?
Hallöchen!
Paul F. Dubois [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
We scientists still use these for debugging. We never 'move on'
very far from the tutorial. The salient feature about print
statements is that they live to be put in and commented out 10
minutes later, without some import being
On 01/09/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And good riddance! The print statement harks back to ABC and even
(unvisual) Basic. Out with it!
I disagree strongly. I can't count the number of times I've been
p*ssed having to write
something like System.out.println(point( + this.x + , +
On 2005-09-01, Ron Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for functions without '()'s. (Just a thought) You could use '' or
'' (or other symbol) as a way to move data between objects.
ui.write 'Hello World/n' # ui.write('Hello World/n')
ui.writeln counter#
[Guido]
The print statement harks back to ABC and even
(unvisual) Basic. Out with it!
[Barry]
I have to strongly disagree.
As would I. From observing recent discussions here, it would be helpful if
everyone else that agrees could come up with a list (a wiki page on python.org,
perhaps?)
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Jack Diederich wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:12:57PM +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
yeah, real programmers don't generate output.
I'd say:
yeah, real programmers don't generate output _to stdout_
sockets, GUI widgets, buffers? sure. stdout? Almost never.
Almost
On Thursday 2005-09-01 18:09, Guido van Rossum wrote:
They *are* cached and there is no cost to using the functions instead
of the methods unless you have so many regexps in your program that
the cache is cleared (the limit is 100).
Sure there is; the cost of looking them up in the cache.
We scientists still use these for debugging. We never 'move on' very far
from the tutorial. The salient feature about print statements is that
they live to be put in and commented out 10 minutes later, without some
import being required or other enabling object being around.
Easy things
Jack Diederich wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:58:40PM +0200, Paolino wrote:
Working on a tree library I've found myself writing
itertools.chain(*[child.method() for child in self]).
Well this happened after I tried instinctively
itertools.chain(child.method() for child in self).
Is there
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:49, Bob Ippolito wrote:
That is absolutely true, print is becoming less and less useful in
the context of GUI or web applications.
I know we're dinosaurs, but some of us still write console apps in
Python!
Even in Just Debugging
scenarios, you're probably
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 16:07, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Another real problem with print is that, while the automatic insertion
of spaces is nice for beginners, it often gets in the way,
OTOH, print's automatic space insertion is often the reason why I'll
reach for it instead of stream.write().
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 00:40, Martin Blais wrote:
Talking about cleanliness, I'm not sure which is cleaner::
print sys.stderr, This is a long sentence that I \
had to cut in two.
print(This is a long sentence that I
had to cut in two., stream=sys.stderr)
Gareth McCaughan:
3. It's convenient for debugging, interactive use, simple scripts,
and various other things.
Interactive use is its own mode and works differently to the base
language. To print the value of something, just type an expression.
Python will evaluate and print the value of
On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 03:18, Paul F. Dubois wrote:
Remove the print statementI laughed until my sides hurt. Hello? Try
dating girls and talking to normal people, geek boys.
We scientists still use these for debugging. We never 'move on' very far
from the tutorial. The salient feature
[Paolino]
Well this happened after I tried instinctively
itertools.chain(child.method() for child in self).
As Jack's note points out, your proposed signature is incompatible with
the one we have now. I recommend creating your own version:
def paolino_chain(iterables):
for it in
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 10:07:29AM +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
OK, now that I've offended everyone, I'll go back into retirement. But I
*am* laughing at you.
Amen.
Seconded.
--amk
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Steven Bethard wrote:
But that would be just as easy with a print() function. In the current
syntax:
print 'foo:', foo, 'bar:', bar, 'baz:', baz,
print 'frobble', frobble
In my proposed function:
print('foo:', foo, 'bar:', bar, 'baz:', baz,
'frobble', frobble)
To
Charles Cazabon wrote:
Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
next use case:
print 'foo:', foo, 'bar:', bar, 'baz:', baz,
if frobble 0:
print 'frobble', frobble
else:
print 'no frobble today'
The need to print /and/ not add a newline isn't nearly as
3. It's convenient for debugging, interactive use, simple scripts,
and various other things.
Interactive use is its own mode and works differently to the base
language. To print the value of something, just type an expression.
Doesn't do the same thing.
The problem with print
Steven print 'foo:', foo, 'bar:', bar, 'baz:', baz,
Steven print 'frobble', frobble
Steven In my proposed function:
Steven print('foo:', foo, 'bar:', bar, 'baz:', baz,
Steven 'frobble', frobble)
Steven To my (admittedly biased) eyes, the second
Charles Or the user can just use stdout.write and have full control.
Don't forget that those of us who are arguing in favor of keeping print are
fully aware of stream.write's existence. It's just that in the common case
the print statement is more convenient. Maybe a print builtin wouldn't
On 9/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven print 'foo:', foo, 'bar:', bar, 'baz:', baz,
Steven print 'frobble', frobble
Steven In my proposed function:
Steven print('foo:', foo, 'bar:', bar, 'baz:', baz,
Steven 'frobble',
skip print(foo, bar, baz, , stream=sys.stderr)
skip That seems a bit like magic, but probably no less magic than the
skip current trailing comma.
Make that no *more* magic ...
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps if the last non-keyword argument was exactly one space, the
newline could be suppressed, e.g.:
print(foo, bar, baz, , stream=sys.stderr)
Sorry, I missed the newline-suppression idea in my first reply. I
think the rule above is too confusing. I'm also
[Paul F. Dubois]
Remove the print statementI laughed until my sides hurt. Hello? Try
dating girls and talking to normal people, geek boys.
I tried talking to both, and in this case all said What's a 'print
statement'? You mean like a bank statement -- or what? ;-)
We scientists still use
On 9/2/05, Steven Bethard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Since
the print function seems to be intended mainly for newbies and simple
debugging,
I think there have been quite a few comments here from people who
*don't* see the print statement [1] as mainly for newbies and simple
debugging. But
Paul Moore wrote:
Sorry about that - I just get a bit tired of feeling like everyone's
characterising me as either a newbie, or as not writing real code...
Hey, I'm a newbie, and I only write simple things, but Python is for people
like me, too!
/F
Paul Moore wrote:
On 9/2/05, Ron Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Jewett wrote:
Putting the spaces back in (without a format string) would
be even worse. Charles Cazabon's pointed out that it *could*
be as simple as
writeln(' '.join( ... ))
Why not just offer an addition method ?
Christos Georgiou wrote:
Paolino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What if I want to chain an infinite list of iterables?
Shouldn't itertools.chain be built to handle that?
Raymond already suggested a four-line function that does exactly that.
Create your
[Tim Peters]
Dang! I may have just found a use, in Zope's
lib/python/docutils/parsers/rst/directives/images.py (which is part
of docutils, not really part of Zope):
figwidth = options.setdefault('figwidth')
figclass = options.setdefault('figclass')
del options['figwidth']
Tim Peters wrote:
[Paul F. Dubois]
Remove the print statementI laughed until my sides hurt. Hello? Try
dating girls and talking to normal people, geek boys.
[...]
Providing entertainment for retirees is one of the PSF's missions. I
wonder whether we could get AARP to kick back $10 to
On 9/2/05, Steven Bethard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't trying to imply anyone was a newbie
here, only that the earlier messages in this thread suggested that
these were the print statement's main audience.
No problem - I was more joking than serious. But I don't
I like the elegance of python, and read py-dev for my own edification.
Since I believe I still have somewhat of a beginner's mind regarding
python, I'll chime in with my opinions.
First of all, I dislike 'writeln', for two reasons:
1) The name. I always want to mentally pronounce it 'ritt-linn'.
Steven Obviously print is used by the rest of us too -- I count around
Steven 5000 instances in my installation. However, I only count around
Steven 400 instances where a print line ends with a comma.
I took a quick look at my own code:
980 active print statements
110
On 9/2/05, Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
print('foo:', foo, 'bar:', bar, 'baz:', baz,
'frobble', frobble)
To my (admittedly biased) eyes, the second version more obviously
prints to a single line.
next use case:
On 9/2/05, Steven Bethard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
Interestingly enough, the other languages I use most (C, Java,
VB(Script) and Javascript (under Windows Scripting Host)) all use
functions for output. Except for C, I uniformly dislike the resulting
code - the output
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And good riddance! The print statement harks back to ABC and even
(unvisual) Basic. Out with it!
Barry I have to strongly disagree. The print statement is simple, easy
Barry to understand, and easy to use.
I'm with Barry. Even for non-debug use
Steven Bethard wrote:
Well, my proposal (which differs from Guidos) is that the print
function (or whatever it ends up getting called) would have the
semantics:
def print(*args):
sys.stdout.write(' '.join(str(arg) for arg in args))
sys.stdout.write('\n')
I'd rather see
Paul Moore wrote:
No-one is saying crucial. We're just expressing opinions. But so are
those (even Guido!) who want to remove the print statement. No-one has
come up with a genuine, objective benefit to removing it (that I can
see). If there isn't one, then we're left with preferences, and
Martin Blais wrote:
Funny enough, the syntax does not barf and goes undetected:
Python generally allows trailing commas so that it is easier to write sequence
literals which are appended to later.
There's also the fact that a trailing comma is used to make a 1-element tuple
- so it could be
At 11:02 AM 9/3/2005 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Printing the items in a sequence also becomes straightforward:
print .join(map(str, range(10))) = output(*range(10))
Playing well with generator expressions comes for free, too:
print .join(str(x*x) for x in range(10))
= output(*(x*x for x
Wow.
With so many people expressing a gut response and not saying what in
the proposal they don't like, it's hard to even start a response. Is
it...
- Going from statement to function?
- Losing the automatically inserted space?
- Having to write more to get a newline appended?
- Losing the name
On 9/2/05, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:02 AM 9/3/2005 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Printing the items in a sequence also becomes straightforward:
print .join(map(str, range(10))) = output(*range(10))
Playing well with generator expressions comes for free, too:
print
All,
I put up a Wiki page for the idea of replacing the print statement with an
easier to use builtin:
http://wiki.python.org/moin/PrintAsFunction
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---
Paul F. Dubois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove the print statementI laughed until my sides hurt. Hello? Try
dating girls and talking to normal people, geek boys.
We scientists still use these for debugging. We never 'move on' very far
from the tutorial.
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 11:02 AM 9/3/2005 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Printing the items in a sequence also becomes straightforward:
print .join(map(str, range(10))) = output(*range(10))
Playing well with generator expressions comes for free, too:
print .join(str(x*x) for x in
Guido Is it...
Guido - Going from statement to function?
Guido - Losing the automatically inserted space?
Guido - Having to write more to get a newline appended?
Guido - Losing the name 'print'?
You forgot
- gratuitous breakage?
I realize you're talking about Py3K, so
On 9/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, but there is a large body of code out there that does use print
statements already. Again, I know you're prepared for breakage, but that
doesn't necessarily mean a completely blank sheet of paper.
Ideally I very much prefer that
Neal Norwitz wrote:
I'm sure this tool wouldn't be perfect, but if it did most of the
work, would that change opinions?
To me, the main objection seems to revolve around the fact that people would
like to be able to future-proof Python 2.x code so that it will also run on
Py3k. We're steadily
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
With so many people expressing a gut response and not saying what in
the proposal they don't like, it's hard to even start a response.
Is it...
For me a bit of several things though with quite variable intensity.
Terry Reedy wrote:
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
- Going from statement to function?
Minor. For quickly adding debug prints, two extra ()s are a small burden,
but if the function were called 'out', then there would still be just five
keystrokes. Nick's output()
54 matches
Mail list logo
