Aahz wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Aahz wrote: > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>It isn't wrong to use the old style, but it is deprecated, [...] > >> > >> > >> Really? Can you point to some official documentation for this? AFAIK, > >> new-style classes still have not been integrated into the standard > >> documentation. Maybe I missed something, though. > >> > >> Note very carefully that "going away eventually" is *not* the same as > >> deprecation. > > > >How about "broke" instead of "deprecated": > > > > > > >>> class Old: > >... def __init__(self): > >... self._value = 'broke' > >... value = property(lambda self: self._value) > >... > > How is this broken? Properties are not supported for old-style classes. > They may not support features introduced in new-style classes, but that's > hardly the same as "broken".
In particular, old-style classes are noticeably faster than new-style classes for some things (I think it was attribute lookup that surprised me recently, possibly related to the property stuff...) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
