Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:28:10 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > > [deploying weapons of mass snippage]
Lol !-) > >>>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. Your opinion, as I understood it, is that it's not worth six extra keystrokes (in the worse case) to get the full power of Python's object model. > I'm not against new-style classes. I do use new-style classes. So why do you use old-style ones too ? Seems like it would be simpler to stick to new-style whatever, no ? > 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*. Could we see it the other way round ? Everything you can do with old-style classes (except writing code compatible with more than six-years old python interpreters), you can do with new-styles. So why even wasting time asking yourself if you need these features now or will need them later ? Saving six extra keystrokes ? How much time do you need to type 'object' ? Certainly less than 1 second. And how much time will you spend when you'll find out that you finally need some of these 'extra' 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. My point is that there's no reason to keep on using old-style classes (compatibility with six-years old interpreters set aside). > There seems to be a misunderstanding that classic classes have been > depreciated. They certainly have not. Not officially yet, true. But come on, it's been 6 (six) years since type unification, and it has always been obvious (to me at least) that the new object model was to replace the 'classic' one. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
