from __future__ import print

[samslists]

Am I the only one that thinks this would be useful? :)

I'd really like to be able to use python 3.0's print statement in
2.x. Is this at least being considered as an option for 2.6? It
seems like it would be helpful with transitioning.

[Andrii V. Mishkovskyi]

2008/4/10, sa*******@gmail.com <sa*******@gmail.com>:

Am I the only one that thinks this would be useful? :)

I'd really like to be able to use python 3.0's print statement in
2.x. Is this at least being considered as an option for 2.6? It
seems like it would be helpful with transitioning.

It's not only considered but have been already implemented. Enjoy. :)

Python 2.6a2+ (trunk:62269, Apr 10 2008, 20:18:42)
[GCC 4.2.3 (Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.

>>from __future__ import print_function
print "asd"

File "<stdin>", line 1
print "foo"
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

>>print("foo")

foo

>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

--
Wbr, Andrii Mishkovskyi.

He's got a heart of a little child, and he keeps it in a jar on his desk.

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

sa*******@gmail.com a écrit :

Am I the only one that thinks this would be useful? :)

I'd really like to be able to use python 3.0's print statement in
2.x.

<nitpick mode="pedantic">
FWIW, the whole point is that in 3.0, print stop being a statement to
become a function...
</nitpick>

[ockman]

On Apr 10, 3:06 pm, "Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

2008/4/10, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>:

Am I the only one that thinks this would be useful? :)

I'd really like to be able to use python 3.0'sprintstatement in
2.x. Is this at least being considered as an option for 2.6? It
seems like it would be helpful with transitioning.

It's not only considered but have been already implemented. Enjoy. :)

Awesome! I'm still stuck on 2.5 but I'm glad to know it's in 2.6. :)

[Lie]

On Apr 11, 7:26 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
[e-mail]:

[e-mail] a écrit :

Am I the only one that thinks this would be useful? :)

I'd really like to be able to use python 3.0's print statement in
2.x.

<nitpick mode="pedantic">
FWIW, the whole point is that in 3.0, print stop being a statement to
become a function...
</nitpick>

But the reason it becomes a function is because being a statement it
is inflexible and there is no way to pass arguments to the print
function, at the cost of extra typing of parentheses. I wish py3k
would make it an option whether to treat print as statement or
function though. Since not all programs require the power of print as
a function and having to type the extra parentheses is a bit tiring if
you're printing lots of things. Probably it may be coupled with a
translator (for source code from statement to function, since the
reverse would not be practical) if you changed your mind.

[Roy Smith]

In article
<ce**********************************@w8g2000prd.g ooglegroups.com>,
Lie <Li******@gmail.comwrote:

I wish py3k
would make it an option whether to treat print as statement or
function though.

Arrrgghhhhh! No, don't even go there. If you want optional parens, use
Perl :-)

[Lie]

On Apr 13, 7:23 pm, Roy Smith <[e-mail]:

In article
<[e-mail]>,

Lie <[e-mail]:

I wish py3k
would make it an option whether to treat print as statement or
function though.

Arrrgghhhhh! No, don't even go there. If you want optional parens, use
Perl :-)

Not optional parens, but a simple print statement coupled with a
powerful print function. This print statement would only have basic
printing functionality such as :

print "Hello"
print var
print var, "Hello too"

specifically, these would be removed:
print var,
print >unstdout, var

This is because it is sometimes annoying to type this:
print("Hello")
print("World")
print("This")
print("is")
print("Captain")
print("Kirk")

because of the double enclosement (parens () and quotes ""),
especially when you're just slipping a simple debugging statement.

This also eases transition between older codes, because while you uses
regular print statements everyday, you don't do print redirection and
comma-ended printing everyday, and it would be easier to just convert
those advanced printing functionality rather than converting all
printing statements.

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Lie schrieb:

On Apr 13, 7:23 pm, Roy Smith <[e-mail]:

>In article
<[e-mail]>,

Lie <[e-mail]:

>> I wish py3k
would make it an option whether to treat print as statement or
function though.

Arrrgghhhhh! No, don't even go there. If you want optional parens, use
Perl :-)

Not optional parens, but a simple print statement coupled with a
powerful print function. This print statement would only have basic
printing functionality such as :

print "Hello"
print var
print var, "Hello too"

specifically, these would be removed:
print var,
print >unstdout, var

This is because it is sometimes annoying to type this:
print("Hello")
print("World")
print("This")
print("is")
print("Captain")
print("Kirk")

You are aware that it is only one character more to type?

It is debatable if print should have gone or not - but once you decide
to have a print-statement I fail to see why you want to rid it of
functionality. The costs for a keyword and special parsing rules are
paid anyway then.

Diez

Diez