On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:06, James Y Knight wrote: > No, we certainly don't /need/ printf(), as is well proven by its > current absence. Having the operation of printing and the operation > of string formatting be separated is good, because it means you can > easily do either one without the other. I don't understand why you > want to combine these two operations. If it's % you object to, then > propose a fix for the actual problem: e.g. a "fmt" function for > formatting strings. (Which I would also object to, because I don't > believe % is a problem). But proposing "printf" just adds > complication for no purpose. It leaves % as a "problem" and adds a > new builtin which duplicates existing functionality.
You can definitely argue about keeping formatting and print separate, but I think Guido and others have explained the problems with %. Also, we already have precedence in format+print in the logging package. I actually think the logging provides a nice, fairly to use interface that print-ng can be modeled on. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
