On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 19:42 +0100, Paul Moore wrote: > On 9/3/05, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 3, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > > > > So I think it's best to have two builtins: > > > > > > print(*args, **kws) > > > printf(fmt, *args, **kws) > > > > It seems pretty bogus to me to add a second builtin just to apply the > > % operator for you. I've always really liked that Python doesn't have > > separate xyzf functions, because formatting is an operation you can > > do directly on the string and pass that to any function you like. > > It's much cleaner... > > I have to agree. While I accept that Barry has genuine use cases for > the printf form, I don't quite see why %-formatting isn't enough. Is > the print-plus-% form so much less readable and/or maintainable?
printf does avoid one extra set of () in many cases, making the code look and indent nicer. I take this chance to state my humble opinion. Please keep the print function print(), not writeln()! "printing stuff" is everyone's favorite anachronistic expression, even though the output doesn't go to a printer anymore. We all love it! I know Guido wanted a different name so that print() could be introduced in python 2 to allow a smooth transition to python 3, but the disadvantages in lost readability and familiarity by far outweigh the transition concerns imho. Regards. -- Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The universe is always one step beyond logic _______________________________________________ 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