[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Old Man Yells At Cloud

ah the only thing i miss in py2 very sad and it was a well heralded arg in
favour of py

print "i miss you simple print"

Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer,

On 17 Sep 2017 17:50, "Tim Golden" <mail at timgolden.me.uk> wrote:

> On 17/09/2017 14:34, breamoreboy at gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 2:16:48 PM UTC+1, bartc wrote:
>>> print can also be used for debugging, when it might be written, deleted
>>> and added again hundreds of times. So writing all those brackets becomes
>>> irksome. 'print' needs to be easy to write.
>>> --
>>> bartc
>> Experienced Python programmers use the logging module for debugging,
>> write once, delete (maybe) never.
> FWIW I'm with Bart on this one. Print-as-a-function removed one small
> simplicity which I appreciated in Python as I first encountered it. And I'm
> entirely unconvinced that the benefit is worth it. That was my view when
> Python 3 was launched and several years of happily using Python 3 have not
> made a difference to my opinion on this particular point: I simply grin and
> bear it.
> Funnily enough, the two arguments most often advanced for
> print-as-function seem to me to cancel each other out. Argument 1 is "this
> way you can redefine print to be, eg, write_to_this_log"; and Argument 2 is
> "but no-one uses print in real code anyway" -- more or less what Mark
> offered just now.
> Well if no-one uses it in real code, then its ability to be redefined is
> moot. (Or, rather, the strength of that argument is diminished).
> In my own code I'm obviously quite capable of defining a function p()
> which does whatever I want in terms of printing etc. But where this bites
> me the most is in the interactive interpreter. Yes, I'm aware I can add
> things to site.py etc. etc. My point would still be that I'm working around
> a change which appears to be solving a problem I didn't have!
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list