Why Turn "Print" into "Print()"????

[Prisoner at War]

Hi, your friendly neighborhood n00b here, just wondering why on earth
the Py3K folks want to mess with a simple thing like the "print"
"command" (is that what it's called, a command?), turning it into
"print()"...I mean, what's the point, exactly?? To look like a more
"traditional" computer-language format?

And what's with not supporting the so-called softspace "feature" of
the current "print" command, where a space after a comma, like

outputs

but with Py3K it will be

returning

????

I was all excited to start learning the language, when suddenly I find
out that a new version is slated for release late summer/early fall
this year -- a new version which is not only not backwards-compatible
with previous versions in many important ways, but even when it comes
to a little thing like the "print" command!!

What's up with that??

 

[drobinow]

Hi, your friendly neighborhood n00b here, just wondering why on earth
the Py3K folks want to mess with a simple thing like the "print"
"command" (is that what it's called, a command?), turning it into
"print()"...I mean, what's the point, exactly?? To look like a more
"traditional" computer-language format?

And what's with not supporting the so-called softspace "feature" of
the current "print" command, where a space after a comma, like


but with Py3K it will be


????

I was all excited to start learning the language, when suddenly I find
out that a new version is slated for release late summer/early fall
this year -- a new version which is not only not backwards-compatible
with previous versions in many important ways, but even when it comes
to a little thing like the "print" command!!

What's up with that??

See http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3105/
That should answer all your questions.

 

[Prisoner at War]

See http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3105/
That should answer all your questions.

Hey, thanks, I missed that one!

Not that I understand the rationale given (iman00b), but oh well, so
it looks like a real function now.

Might you have any idea, BTW, whether the upcoming "Head First
Programming" from O'Reilly, coming in August, will cover Python 3??
Unlikely, right? Unless maybe if that guy Vern Ceder (the author) is
active in the Python development community??

I'd already pre-ordered the book...but it makes no sense to get a book
on "old" Python 2.x if it's just going to get deprecated in like a
year or two! Then again, current Python programs would still work,
right? I mean, once it's been done up as an executable...PySol or
something should still work, right? (Sorry, iman00b, I don't really
know how this stuff works....)

 

[Gabriel Genellina]

Might you have any idea, BTW, whether the upcoming "Head First
Programming" from O'Reilly, coming in August, will cover Python 3??
Unlikely, right? Unless maybe if that guy Vern Ceder (the author) is
active in the Python development community??

I'd already pre-ordered the book...but it makes no sense to get a book
on "old" Python 2.x if it's just going to get deprecated in like a
year or two! Then again, current Python programs would still work,
right? I mean, once it's been done up as an executable...PySol or
something should still work, right? (Sorry, iman00b, I don't really
know how this stuff works....)

The differences aren't so fundamental or important: it's not an entirely new language, just some ugly old things are being removed or changed in incompatible ways (at *some* time it was supposed to happen - but could not happen on the 2.x series which has to remain backwards compatible)
Also, Python 3.0 will be released simultaneously with 2.6, and there will be other 2.x releases. Python 2 won't magically disappear from Earth, I don't think Linux distros will come with Python 3.0 by default anytime soon (perhaps not before 3.1).
So learning Python with a book targeted to 2.5 isn't a waste of time - not at all.
(This subject has already been discussed several times in this group.)

 

[Prisoner at War]

The differences aren't so fundamental or important: it's not an entirely new language, just some ugly old things are being removed or changed in incompatible ways (at *some* time it was supposed to happen - but could not happen on the 2.x series which has to remain backwards compatible)
Also, Python 3.0 will be released simultaneously with 2.6, and there will be other 2.x releases. Python 2 won't magically disappear from Earth, I don't think Linux distros will come with Python 3.0 by default anytime soon (perhaps not before 3.1).

But I'd read that Python 3 is very different in many important ways.
I read it right there on the Py3K site! I can't make sense of how,
why, even what, exactly, but that's not a misimpression on my part, I
certain nonetheless...it's not just cosmetic changes but important
ones pertaining to a sort of "linguistic logic" I gather....

So learning Python with a book targeted to 2.5 isn't a waste of time - not at all.

Well, I will be learning Python from the excellent materials available
online, to be sure, but a book that I spend money for, well, I have
"higher standards" for it, you know, one of which is that it doesn't
get superseded so soon!

(This subject has already been discussed several times in this group.)

Oops, sorry! Just thinking aloud a logical follow-up question....

 

[Ulrich Eckhardt]

But I'd read that Python 3 is very different in many important ways.

Yes, and that is the reason it is version 3.x instead of another 2.x. Moving
to version 3 signals that some changes were done that are _not_ backward
compatible and not even intended to.

I read it right there on the Py3K site! I can't make sense of how,
why, even what, exactly, but that's not a misimpression on my part,
I certain nonetheless...it's not just cosmetic changes but important
ones pertaining to a sort of "linguistic logic" I gather....

Well, cosmetic or important is always in the eye of the beholder. I
personally would say that they are important cosmetic changes. You don't
get any new features or a more Touring-complete language suddenly, but it
will be much more consistent because it doesn't have to maintain wrong
decisions of the past, like making 'print' a separate statement when a
function would do.

Well, I will be learning Python from the excellent materials available
online, to be sure, but a book that I spend money for, well, I have
"higher standards" for it, you know, one of which is that it doesn't
get superseded so soon!

As already pointed out, Python 2 will not suddenly cease to exist and
knowledge about it won't suddenly be worthless either. I guess it will take
a few years until the use of Python 3 supercedes that of Python 2.

Uli

 

[alex23]

But I'd read that Python 3 is very different in many important ways.
I read it right there on the Py3K site! I can't make sense of how,
why, even what, exactly, but that's not a misimpression on my part, I
certain nonetheless...it's not just cosmetic changes but important
ones pertaining to a sort of "linguistic logic" I gather....

Well, let's see what Guido says about the issue:

Q. I want to learn Python. Should I learn Python 2.6 or Python 3.0?

A. Definitely learn Python 2.x (the latest version out is 2.5). I
expect it'll be two years before you'll need to learn Python 3.0, and
the differences aren't that great from a beginner's perspective: most
of what you'll learn about 2.x will still hold about 3.0.

(from http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211200)

 

[Terry Reedy]

| > But I'd read that Python 3 is very different in many important ways.
| > I read it right there on the Py3K site! I can't make sense of how,
| > why, even what, exactly, but that's not a misimpression on my part, I
| > certain nonetheless...it's not just cosmetic changes but important
| > ones pertaining to a sort of "linguistic logic" I gather....

One important different for beginners is the elimination of old ways that
no longer need be learned. Another is that a few inconsistencies have be
ironed out.

| Well, let's see what Guido says about the issue:
|
| Q. I want to learn Python. Should I learn Python 2.6 or Python 3.0?
|
| A. Definitely learn Python 2.x (the latest version out is 2.5). I
| expect it'll be two years before you'll need to learn Python 3.0, and
| the differences aren't that great from a beginner's perspective: most
| of what you'll learn about 2.x will still hold about 3.0.
|
| (from http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211200)

My personal view is a little different. Learn 3.0 unless you have a reason
to learn 2.x (and there are many possible ;-). Guido wrote the above
nearly a year ago, before either existed to be learned. As it turned out,
a decision was made to backport most of the new features of 3.0 into 2.6 to
ease the transition. Consequently, 2.6 is in some sense the union of 2.5
and 3.0, so that there is more to learn. This is not a problem for Guido,
but I can easily imagine that the extra duplication of function might be
for a new learner, let alone someone like me who liked Python for its
relative smallness. I personally have no perceived need and hence no plans
to ever touch 2.6. So, depending on circumstances, again, I might suggest
2.5 instead of 2.6.

tjr

 

[Sverker Nilsson]

print a statement

let's make it import() if() (C freaks) except() else() what else()

It was just convenient to not have to write those parenthesis

I agree with the OP, of course if you wrote my post after I began look
into this

Parentheses for the people..

I mean, it's not that.... making it a function?

Well I'd have suggested, make a function and call it write()

The name print is a misnormer any case

So it keeps a misleading name and make it a function, thinks it is a
cleanup

Just Add a write() builtin function so can we use that if we want a
function

but keep the print statement, the import statement, the if statement,
the for statement...

Dont make they functions. Or is this just to throw us out?

S...

 

[alex23]

Dont make they functions. Or is this just to throw us out?

Have you even bothered to read the reasoning for this change since the
last time you got your knickers twisted over it?

http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3105/#rationale

I don't see "piss everyone off" listed there anywhere.

Personally, I believe if you're writing code of any serious length,
you generally shouldn't be using 'print' anyway, using the logging
module allows for a lot more flexibility.

If you're bothered by having to type the parentheses while in the
interpreter, try using IPython with it's autocall mode turned on.

 

[Sverker Nilsson]

I had bothered. Volunterly that is too. Becausa I care.

Should we piss of about py3k? It's a debate.

Guiod wrote also something he got from Ruby: "Open source need to
change or die"

If I recall correctly. I cant get too bothered for I get tired too.

But change is not == progress.

Sometimes it is like in the 70s here when we had even worse economy
"Well, at least it gives some work opportunities"

Think about it. It is Less work that is the ideal, the thing to strive
for
Not More work - it may look to give more money but it is really not
economic

So is it this the way ? No ? It ain't broken so lets brake it

S

 

[Paddy]

I had bothered. Volunterly that is too. Becausa I care.

Should we piss of about py3k? It's a debate.

I suggest you try and drum up some support for your
position. If you don't get much, then maybe you should
reconsider your stance? And if you do, then you as a group
might find a more effective way to persuade others to
change.

- Paddy.