On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:07:02 -0600, Edward K Ream wrote: >>> That's the proof. Can you find a flaw in it? >> No, but it doesn't matter. There's no particular reason why you have to >> write "print (whatever)" in your code. What you need is *some function* >> that is capable of duplicating the functionality of print, > > Precisely wrong.
Are you trying to say that the name "print" is more important to you than the functionality? If not, then I have no idea why you say I'm wrong. > The title of this thread is 'the end of print', and the > whole point of my comments is that spelling matters. That might be the point you are trying to make, but you haven't succeeded. > I would have absolutely no objection to the pep if it specified some other > name for an 'official' print function. Pick any name, preferably longer > than two characters, that does not conflict with either an existing global > function or module. Huh? Now you're just not making sense. If Python 3 dropped the print statement and replaced it with official_print_function(), how would that help you in your goal to have a single code base that will run on both Python 2.3 and Python 3, while still using print? In software development there is a common saying: "Good, Fast, Cheap -- Pick any two". The same holds here: Keep the print name; Keep the print functionality; Keep a single code base. Pick any two. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
