On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:28:10 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: [deploying weapons of mass snippage]
>> Otherwise, the choice between old >> and new is not very important. > > Your opinion. Too bad you're missing some of the most powerful parts of > the language. Yes, it is my opinion, and it seems that in your zeal to defend new-style classes against an imaginary attack, you've completely misunderstood what my opinion is. I'm not against new-style classes. I do use new-style classes. There are a whole lot of extra features that new-style classes have that old-style classes don't have, some of which I didn't even think of. (Thanks for pointing them out, and I'm not being sarcastic.) There are plenty of reasons for preferring new style classes. If those reasons hold for you, then of course you should use new style classes. But that's not the same thing as saying that you should use new style classes *even when you don't care about those features*. I never once suggested that new style classes are unnecessary, or a waste of time, or bad, or whatever else you seem to think I was saying. My point was, if you don't _need_ a new style class, there is no reason to avoid using an old style class. It is a purely personal choice. There seems to be a misunderstanding that classic classes have been depreciated. They certainly have not. We've been told that old style classes will "eventually" disappear, "probably" in Python 3. That is not the same thing at all. The docs are very careful to avoid saying that old style classes are depreciated. (See, for example http://docs.python.org/ref/node33.html) What I predict is that under the hood, Python 3 will complete the job of unifying types and classes. The distinction between classic classes and new style classes will go away. All classes will behave the same, whether you write "class X:" or "class X():" or "class X(object):" or whatever syntax Python 3 uses for defining classes. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
