5 ms·

What does someone want if they write "bar = print foo,"? Is it the same if "print" isn't the built-in function?

shaki-dora 8y ago
Operator precedence isn't really a new concept, and Python relies on it in plenty other situations: bar = 1 + 1 I do believe Python made the right call, actually: print needed to be unified with functions, and dropping the requirement for parenthesis for function calls would have introduced so much incompatibility as to make the Python 2 -> 3 transition far more difficult. But ignoring the legacy issue, there is a better way to do function calls, and it is ruby.
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  What does operator precedence have to do with this? Ending a parameter list with a comma changes the output of the print keyword but not a function. Assignment statements can contain function calls but not the print keyword. C style function calls are common, explicit, and consistent. Python adds the best combination of positional, variadic, and named parameters of any language I know. ML style has less punctuation and simpler grouping rules. Ruby has the weaknesses of both.
- arbie 8y ago
  Didn't Ruby borrow it from Perl?
  - epse 8y ago
    And lisp, just less parentheses
- shrimpx 8y ago
  Haskell/ml/caml do it better than Ruby. f 1 2 (f 1 2).thing Here the parentheses are nothing special, they just hint precedence. As opposed to f 1, 2 f(1, 2).thing Awkward special-case commas and parentheses.
eequah9L 8y ago
That usage doesn't get the weirdly specific error message though. It's only the Python2-ish statement that gets one.
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  What does someone want "print foo" to do if "print" is a different function? What does someone want "print (1, 2)" to do if "print" is the built-in function? It prints a tuple in Python 2 and ints in Python 3.
  - eequah9L 8y ago
    I get that. So the Python 3 interpreter has to assume that when I say "print (1, 2)", I actually mean, print these two individual arguments. If I say "print 'foo'" though, it recommends "print ('foo')", but doesn't go all the way to assume I actually meant that. There's a piece of code handling that special case that stops short of actually interpreting what I apparently mean. The frustration around that was the original point.

Operator precedence isn't really a new concept, and Python relies on it in plenty other situations: bar = 1 + 1 I do believe Python made the right call, actually: print needed to be unified with functions, and dropping the requirement for parenthesis for function calls would have introduced so much incompatibility as to make the Python 2 -> 3 transition far more difficult. But ignoring the legacy issue, there is a better way to do function calls, and it is ruby.

pseudalopex 8y ago
What does operator precedence have to do with this? Ending a parameter list with a comma changes the output of the print keyword but not a function. Assignment statements can contain function calls but not the print keyword. C style function calls are common, explicit, and consistent. Python adds the best combination of positional, variadic, and named parameters of any language I know. ML style has less punctuation and simpler grouping rules. Ruby has the weaknesses of both.
arbie 8y ago
Didn't Ruby borrow it from Perl?
- epse 8y ago
  And lisp, just less parentheses
shrimpx 8y ago
Haskell/ml/caml do it better than Ruby. f 1 2 (f 1 2).thing Here the parentheses are nothing special, they just hint precedence. As opposed to f 1, 2 f(1, 2).thing Awkward special-case commas and parentheses.

eequah9L 8y ago

That usage doesn't get the weirdly specific error message though. It's only the Python2-ish statement that gets one.

pseudalopex 8y ago
What does someone want "print foo" to do if "print" is a different function? What does someone want "print (1, 2)" to do if "print" is the built-in function? It prints a tuple in Python 2 and ints in Python 3.
- eequah9L 8y ago
  I get that. So the Python 3 interpreter has to assume that when I say "print (1, 2)", I actually mean, print these two individual arguments. If I say "print 'foo'" though, it recommends "print ('foo')", but doesn't go all the way to assume I actually meant that. There's a piece of code handling that special case that stops short of actually interpreting what I apparently mean. The frustration around that was the original point.