[Nick Coghlan]
> "Print as statement" => printing sequences nicely is a pain
What's wrong with this?
>>> print range(10)
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
>>> print tuple("string")
('s', 't', 'r', 'i', 'n', 'g')
This is a serious question - that's how I would expect a print function to
work anyway.
> "Print as statement" => can't easily change the separator
[etc]
To me, the point of the builtin print is that it's simple. If you want to
control what separator is used, or if there is a newline at the end, or
print to something that isn't sys.stdout, or some other magic, then use
sys.stdout.write(). If you want to get the contents of __unicode__/__str__
of an object to stdout, which there has been overwhelming evidence is a very
common task, then print is a fantastically simple and straightforward way to
do that.
[Terry Reedy]
> 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.
But seven keypresses (assuming one is using a keyboard where you use shift
to get '(' and ')'). It sounds trivial, but a print statement (i.e. no ())
looks clean and concise. I like this:
while True: pass
More than:
while (true) {}
For the same reason. This is a big plus of Python vs. C.
[Guido]
> Consider this: if Python *didn't* have a print statement, but
> it had a built-in function with the same functionality
> (including, say, keyword parameters to suppress the trailing
> newline or the space between items); would anyone support a
> proposal to make it a statement instead?
Yes. If it didn't have the redirect stuff; I would like it more if it also
didn't have the trailing comma magic. "print" is a fundamental; it deserves
to be a statement :)
=Tony.Meyer
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
