On 2003-06-16 at 17:48:58, Simon Cozens wrote: > % grep printf cvs/modules/**/*pm | wc -l > 15 > % grep -v printf cvs/modules/**/*pm | wc -l > 15360 > > Well, 0.1% agreed, anyway.
Now, now, that's hardly a fair comparison. Maybe if you grepped for lines that contain "print" but not "printf", or simply did a grep -l to count the number of modules that use printf at all anywhere . . . I think output formatting is a logical thing to have in the core. It was the first thing Perl was used for, after all. I don't think we need a special magical way of doing it inside an interpolation context, though. I think the less interpolation magic, the better, and there's already a lot which can go away once we have $( arbitrary expression ). I think $( sprintf ) is more than adequate. The sprintf syntax could perhaps stand to be shorter. It is unfortunate that Perl's string/number duality would make it at the very least awkward to adopt the Python/Ruby overloaded % operator, which I otherwise like. Perhaps we could, by analogy with uc() and lc(), introduce an sf() alias? -- Mark REED | CNN Internet Technology 1 CNN Center Rm SW0831G | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Atlanta, GA 30348 USA | +1 404 827 4754
