The pros and cons of making 'print' a function in Python 3.x are well discussed at:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056154.html Alas, it appears that the effect of this pep would be to make it impossible to use the name 'print' in a backward compatible manner. Indeed, if a program is to compile in both Python 2.x and Python 3.x, the print function (or the print statement with parentheses) can not use the 'sep', 'end' and 'file' keywords. This in turn makes it impossible to support the effect of print with trailing comma in Python 2.x programs while retaining the name 'print'. The only workaround would be to define yet another function, with a name *other* than 'print'. This function, say print2, can support whatever features the implementer wants because it does not collide with the Python 2.x print statement. In short, pep 3105 will *discourage* rather than encourage the use of the name 'print'. Rather than invalidating most Python 2.x programs, it would seem more graceful for Python 3.x to define a [your name here] function that can be used in addition to, rather than to the exclusion of, print. Edward P.S. The existence of an automated translation script does not change the situation described above in any way. At best, such a script could change print statements to [your name here] functions, but the effect would still be the elimination of the name 'print' in all programs that aim to support Python 2.x and Python 3.x. EKR -------------------------------------------------------------------- Edward K. Ream email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
