print "hello", >> file

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:47:04 -0500, Jp Calderone <exarkun at intarweb.us> wrote:
>
>--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Disposition: inline
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 06:36:20PM +0000, phil hunt wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:04:14 -0500, Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrot=
>e:
>> >phil hunt wrote:
>> >>=20
>> >> Wouldn't it be nice if appending to a file, appending to a string
>> >> and appending to stdout had the same syntax?
>> >>=20
>> >>    f =3D file("somefilename", "w")
>> >>    f << "hello"
>> >>=20
>> >>    s =3D "some string"
>> >>    s << "hello"
>> >>=20
>> >>    out << "hello"
>> >
>> >Since you can't append to a string,
>>=20
>> But I can:
>>=20
>>    philh:~> python
>>    Python 2.0 (#1, Jan 19 2001, 17:54:27)
>>    [GCC 2.95.2 19991024 (release)] on linux2
>>    Type "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>    >>>
>>    >>>
>>    >>> s =3D "some string"
>>    >>> s +=3D "hello"
>>    >>> s
>>    'some stringhello'
>>          =20
>
>  This rebinds "s" to a new string object.  I suppose this hypothetical "<<"
>operator could do the same.

Indeed. IMOv it's irrelevant whether += (or <<, or whatever) is 
implemented by modifying an existing object or binding to a new one 
-- that's just an implementation detail, of no more significance 
bthan whether the underlying processor is a Pentium or ARM.

> OTOH, why does anyone want yet -another- way to
>concatenate strings?

I don't particularly. I think that if Python had been designed from 
scratch to use << for all 3, it'd be more concise and a cleaner 
design -- but we are not designing Python from scratch.

-- 
|*|*|  Philip Hunt <philh at cabalamat.org>  |*|*|
|*|*|  "Memes are a hoax; pass it on"     |*|*|