Oh fuck off. years of code that cannot be easily redone in ANY editor. Whoever OCDd that into python 3 needs to have their asshole kicked up into their mouth.
If you developed it to not have brackets for the first one or two decades. Especially if there’s no possible way to easily edit it. You’re a psychopath to not consider this.
That’s what major versions are for - breaking changes. Regardless, you should probably be able to fix this with some regex hackery. Something along the lines of
why would it not have brackets? i detest syntax that is only applicable to a handful of situations and has to be specifically memorized separately from how every other part of the language works.
Not after 10 years of it not having brackets. And providing no editing ability to change it as a macro. That’s just cruel and inhumane and psychopathic.
“Print needs ()”
Oh fuck off. years of code that cannot be easily redone in ANY editor. Whoever OCDd that into python 3 needs to have their asshole kicked up into their mouth.
Imo is more intuitive the need of () in print,like is a function like any other, why would not use ()?
If you developed it to not have brackets for the first one or two decades. Especially if there’s no possible way to easily edit it. You’re a psychopath to not consider this.
That’s what major versions are for - breaking changes. Regardless, you should probably be able to fix this with some regex hackery. Something along the lines of
new_file_content = re.sub(r'(?<=\bprint)(\s+)(?!\()', '(', old_file_content) new_file_content = re.sub(r'(print\(.*?)(\n|$)', r'\1)', new_file_content)should do the trick.
why would it not have brackets? i detest syntax that is only applicable to a handful of situations and has to be specifically memorized separately from how every other part of the language works.
Not after 10 years of it not having brackets. And providing no editing ability to change it as a macro. That’s just cruel and inhumane and psychopathic.