gratuitous new features in 2.0

[Grant Griffin]

Thomas Wouters wrote:

[good explanation that "to" could work if made a keyword snipped]

Thanks--that helps.

> > If the intent is to make the special symbol stand out, I guess ">>" is
> > as good a choice as any (if not better <wink>), but if there's merit in
> > making it "fit in", much as the "in" part of "for x in y" fits in very
> > nicely, I'm still voting for "to"--if it can possibly be done.
>
> Well, 'print to' cannot be done without making 'to' a keyword, and that's
> currently very sensitive, because it also breaks things like 'object.to':
> not just variable-names, but also attributes and such. There's talk (but no
> code yet) to have *that* fixed, so that you can create a method or attribute
> called 'print', for instance, but it isn't done yet, and it would still make
> adding keywords tricky.

I know that it's very important not to break old code, and I know Guido
and other language designers are very committed to that (which is
generally A Very Good Thing.)  But it's a tradeoff: I would posit that
people who have a problem with old code vis-a-vis "to" could either
change it, or just stick with 1.5.2. <<toheck with 'em>>

Also, so many points of Tim's "Python Philosophy" point in favor of "to"
and against ">>"* that I guess my personal instinct is that The Greater
Pythonic Good would be served by it.

(now,-if-only-guido-could-see-it-like-tim-<wink>)-ly y'rs,

=g2
*BTW, what's wrong with ">" for redirect?  Heck, anything that both DOS
and Unix do can't be _all_ bad! <wink>
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin                                       g2 at dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru                           http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation	      http://www.iowegian.com