2005/10/17, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 10/17/05, Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why is that? Moving forward the Python people expect all classes to be > > defined as "new-style". Support for old-style is there simply to allow > > for backwards compatibility. > > Because we haven't taken the time to subclass "object" in class definitions?
A quick investigation 5)15:05:20 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/django/svn/django/trunk/django 0$ grep -R "class[^(]*:" $(find . -name "*.py")|grep -v \.svn|wc -l 100 seems to reveal that there are only 100 old style classes on [1006]. Adrian are you interested in a patch about that trivial task? > Adrian > > -- > Adrian Holovaty > holovaty.com | djangoproject.com | chicagocrime.org > -- Carlo C8E Miron, ICQ #26429731 -- Disclaimer: If I receive a message from you, you are agreeing that: 1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient". 2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and make such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends itself to. In particular, I may quote it on USENET or the WWW. 3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company. 4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may be included on your message.
