Pep 3105: the end of print?

[Fuzzyman]

On Feb 16, 3:00 pm, "Edward K Ream" <edream... at charter.net> wrote:
> > So you only have one codebase to maintain and you can still use print...
>
> Not if the theorum is correct.
>
> > It may be true that you won't be able to write code that runs
> > untranslated on 2 and 3.
>
> That's my definition of a common code base.  That is the content of the
> theorum.
>

Ok - in which case it is very limited.


> > That doesn't stop you writing code for Python
> > 2.X, then translating a version for Python 3. (Uhm... indeed that's the
> > point of 2to3.)
>
> That is not what I would call a common code base.

But it is what I call a common code base. We are at an impasse. :-)

> The developer would have
> to run the translater every time the code changed.  And if the Python 3.0
> code were considered the 'master' code, the developer would need a 3to2
> translater.
>
> Either disprove the theorum or give up the notion of having a common code
> base that uses print.
>

Yes the use of print is changing in a backwards incompatible way, no
one is disputing that.

Personally I wish it wasn't, print 'feels like a statement' to me. But
it's not the end of the world and it is *definitely* going to be able
to be handled by 2to3.

It's also not about to change.

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidpsace.org.uk/python/articles.shtml

> Edward
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Edward K. Ream   email:  edream... at charter.net
> Leo:http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------------