Home Original page

[Python-Dev] Replacement for print in Python 3.0

Barry Warsaw barry at python.org
Sun Sep 4 18:51:02 CEST 2005 
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 12:51, James Y Knight wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> 
> > So I think it's best to have two builtins:
> >
> > print(*args, **kws)
> > printf(fmt, *args, **kws)
> 
> It seems pretty bogus to me to add a second builtin just to apply the  
> % operator for you. I've always really liked that Python doesn't have  
> separate xyzf functions, because formatting is an operation you can  
> do directly on the string and pass that to any function you like.  
> It's much cleaner...

Actually, we probably only /need/ printf(), and certainly for C
programmers (are there any of us left? ;), I think that would be a small
conceptual leap.  The motivation for keeping a non-formatting version is
for simple cases, and beginners -- both of which use cases should not be
dismissed.  

The reason I proposed two versions is because I'd really dislike putting
the format string in any position other than the first positional
argument, and I can't think of a way to definitively distinguish between
whether a first arg string is or is not a format string.

One possible way out is to define a string literal that creates Template
strings, and then make the Template string syntax rich enough to cover
today's %-substitutions.  Then if the first argument is a Template, you
do printf()-like output otherwise you do print()-output.

-Barry


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20050904/e506a9c9/attachment.pgp
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list