On 10/16/07, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
There's a patch for this too. http://bugs.python.org/issue1633807 n _______________________________________________ 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
