Steve Holden wrote:
The principal one that I can see is that you are relying on this
implementation feature to maintain forward compatibility, since I'm not
aware of any pronouncement that says "object will *always* have a dummy
__init__".
Maybe there's no such pronouncement, but unless there is a
clear statement somewhere (and I believe I've missed it, if
there is) that reads "one should *always* call __init__ on the
superclass even if one is just subclassing object and not
dealing with multiple inheritance situations", then I would
submit that the majority of Python code written using new-style
classes would be broken should what you suggest above ever
actually happen... starting with much of the code in the
standard library (based on a quick glance at those modules
whose contents match the re pattern "class .*(object):" .
-Peter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
