B
bearophileHUGS
There is/was a long discussion about the replacement for print in
Python 3.0 (I don't know if this discussion is finished):
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/055968.html
There is also a wiki page that collects the ideas:
http://wiki.python.org/moin/PrintAsFunction
There is the will to keep the printing operation very simple for the
most common situation, but at the same time to make it flexible
(optional no space between printed items, newline, redirection to file,
etc), such requirements can collide. Another problem is to avoid
backward compatibility problems in the source code. I post my idea here
because I think I'm not fit for the python-dev mailing list yet. I hope
posting this here is okay.
A printing operation as a function requires the (), but I think there
can be little advantages (but not many advantages, the print statement
is acceptable for me still), so I agree to make it a function.
Name: I think print() and printnl() can be fine names for the two
functions, but this can give problems, so other names can be:
write/writenl, show/shownl, echo/echonl, put/putnl, emit/emitnl,
say/saynl
I think the write/writenl or show/shownl namas are the best (writeln
instead of writenl is acceptable too, I think).
Spacing problem: I can solve this problem with the solution used in the
Pascal language, that is to not print the space between items. Here are
some examples, from the PrintAsFunction page:
# Standard printing
print 1, 2, 3
shownl(1, " ", 2, " ", 3)
# Printing without any spaces
print "%d%d%d" % (1, 2, 3)
shownl(1, 2, 3)
# Print as comma separated list
print "%d, %d, %d" % (1, 2, 3)
shownl(1, ", ", 2, ", ", 3)
# Print without a trailing newline
print 1, 2, 3,
show(1, " ", 2, " ", 3)
# Print to a different stream
print >> sys.stderr, 1, 2, 3
shownl(1, " ", 2, " ", 3, to=sys.stderr)
# Print a simple sequence
print " ".join(map(str, range(10)))
shownl( " ".join(map(str, range(10))) )
# Print a generator expression
print " ".join(str(x*x) for x in range(10))
shownl( " ".join(str(x*x) for x in range(10)) )
It's not very nice looking, but it's simple, and it avoids problems and
the use of the "sep" parameter. This is the alternative that uses the
sep:
# Print without a trailing newline
print 1, 2, 3,
show(1, 2, 3)
# Printing without any spaces
print "%d%d%d" % (1, 2, 3)
shownl(1, 2, 3, sep='')
# Print as comma separated list
print "%d, %d, %d" % (1, 2, 3)
shownl(1, 2, 3, sep=', ')
# Print a simple sequence
print " ".join(map(str, range(10)))
shownl(*range(10))
I think the % string formatting used in Python can be fine for the C
language (and ), but I have to look its syntax each time I use it ("%"
character + Mapping key (optional) + Conversion flags (optional) +
Minimum field width (optional) + Precision (optional) + Length modifier
(optional) + Conversion type), and I think a simpler solution (fit for
the most common usage) can be found for a high level langage like
Python (I can say something similar about the syntax to define the base
of integer numbers, the use of the trailing 0 for the octals isn't
good).
Bye,
bearophile
Python 3.0 (I don't know if this discussion is finished):
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/055968.html
There is also a wiki page that collects the ideas:
http://wiki.python.org/moin/PrintAsFunction
There is the will to keep the printing operation very simple for the
most common situation, but at the same time to make it flexible
(optional no space between printed items, newline, redirection to file,
etc), such requirements can collide. Another problem is to avoid
backward compatibility problems in the source code. I post my idea here
because I think I'm not fit for the python-dev mailing list yet. I hope
posting this here is okay.
A printing operation as a function requires the (), but I think there
can be little advantages (but not many advantages, the print statement
is acceptable for me still), so I agree to make it a function.
Name: I think print() and printnl() can be fine names for the two
functions, but this can give problems, so other names can be:
write/writenl, show/shownl, echo/echonl, put/putnl, emit/emitnl,
say/saynl
I think the write/writenl or show/shownl namas are the best (writeln
instead of writenl is acceptable too, I think).
Spacing problem: I can solve this problem with the solution used in the
Pascal language, that is to not print the space between items. Here are
some examples, from the PrintAsFunction page:
# Standard printing
print 1, 2, 3
shownl(1, " ", 2, " ", 3)
# Printing without any spaces
print "%d%d%d" % (1, 2, 3)
shownl(1, 2, 3)
# Print as comma separated list
print "%d, %d, %d" % (1, 2, 3)
shownl(1, ", ", 2, ", ", 3)
# Print without a trailing newline
print 1, 2, 3,
show(1, " ", 2, " ", 3)
# Print to a different stream
print >> sys.stderr, 1, 2, 3
shownl(1, " ", 2, " ", 3, to=sys.stderr)
# Print a simple sequence
print " ".join(map(str, range(10)))
shownl( " ".join(map(str, range(10))) )
# Print a generator expression
print " ".join(str(x*x) for x in range(10))
shownl( " ".join(str(x*x) for x in range(10)) )
It's not very nice looking, but it's simple, and it avoids problems and
the use of the "sep" parameter. This is the alternative that uses the
sep:
# Print without a trailing newline
print 1, 2, 3,
show(1, 2, 3)
# Printing without any spaces
print "%d%d%d" % (1, 2, 3)
shownl(1, 2, 3, sep='')
# Print as comma separated list
print "%d, %d, %d" % (1, 2, 3)
shownl(1, 2, 3, sep=', ')
# Print a simple sequence
print " ".join(map(str, range(10)))
shownl(*range(10))
I think the % string formatting used in Python can be fine for the C
language (and ), but I have to look its syntax each time I use it ("%"
character + Mapping key (optional) + Conversion flags (optional) +
Minimum field width (optional) + Precision (optional) + Length modifier
(optional) + Conversion type), and I think a simpler solution (fit for
the most common usage) can be found for a high level langage like
Python (I can say something similar about the syntax to define the base
of integer numbers, the use of the trailing 0 for the octals isn't
good).
Bye,
bearophile