On Oct 16, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I expect this will happen. At the very least, you'll be able to just > use 'print' for that function's name if you include > > from __future__ import print_function > > at the top of your module. Whether it's worth it to make the same > function available under a different name that doesn't require such an > import I'm not sure.
This makes sense to me. Creating a new name for the function doesn't add anything, IMO: to use it I need to "dirty" my code wherever I print, using the __future__ import only dirties an isolated spot in a module that prints. Much better, and probably useful during the transitional period. -Fred -- Fred Drake <fdrake at acm.org> _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
