On 30/01/2023 09:41, mutt...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 23:57:51 -0500
Thomas Passin <li...@tompassin.net> wrote:
On 1/29/2023 4:15 PM, elvis-85...@notatla.org.uk wrote:
On 2023-01-28, Louis Krupp <lkr...@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> wrote:
On 1/27/2023 9:37 AM, mutt...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
eval("print(123)")
123
Does OP expect the text to come from the eval or from the print?
x = print( [i for i in range(1, 10)] )
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
x
(nothing printed)
Because print() returns nothing (i.e., the statement x is None is True).
I don't understand this. What was the point of the upheaval of converting
the print command in python 2 into a function in python 3 if as a function
print() doesn't return anything useful? Surely even the length of the
formatted string as per C's sprintf() function would be helpful?
That's a fair question, or rather 2 fair questions.
There is an explanation of why the change was made at
https://snarky.ca/why-print-became-a-function-in-python-3/
In brief: (a) the print() function is more flexible and can be used in
expressions
(b) Python's syntax was simplified by dropping the
special syntax used by the print statement.
sys.stdout.write() does return the number of characters output (you
could use this instead of print() if you need this;
remember to add a '\n' character at the end of a line). I guess the option
of making print() do the same either was not considered, or was
rejected, when print was made a function.
Best wishes
Rob Cliffe
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
