On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Grant Edwards <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2010-06-28, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Edward A. Falk <f...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
>>> In article <mailman.2270.1277736664.32709.python-l...@python.org>,
>>> Stephen Hansen ?<me+list/pyt...@ixokai.io> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>No one said otherwise, or that print was useless and never used in such
>>>>contexts.
>>>
>>> I was responding to the question "Also, do you use print *that*
>>> much? Really?" ?The implication being that in the majority of useful
>>> python programs, you don't really need to use print.
>>>
>>> My answer is yes, I use print in 100% of the scripts I write, including
>>> the large useful ones.
>>>
>>> For this reason alone, python 3 is incompatible with python 2 (which
>>> has already been acknowledged.)
>>>
>>> Until such time as 100% of the systems I might ever want to run my progams
>>> on have python 3 installed, I cannot port my programs over from python 2.
>>
>> Uhmm, just add the parenthesis to your old scripts. You can
>> do that without breaking on 2.x.
>
> I suppose so, for some values of "breaking". It can change the output:
>
> There is definitely a semantic difference between
>
> print "asdf",
>
> and
> print ("asdf",)
I was actually referring to what stephen hansen pointed out, the
from __future__ import print_function.
Geremy Condra
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
