On Apr 17, 12:02 am, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it. > > > > So how would you have done the old-style class to new-style class > > > transition? > > > I'd ignore it. I never understood it and never had > > any need for it anyway. New-style classes and metaclasses > > were a complicated solution to an unimportant problem in > > my opinion. And also a fiendish way to make code > > inscrutible -- which I thought was more of a Perl thing > > than a Python thing, or should be. > > > I must be missing some of the deeper issues here. Please > > educate me. > > The deeper issue is that you're benefiting from these "unimportant" > changes even if you never use them yourself. > > Carl Banks
That just seems a BIT categorical for a statement. Who is 'you'? I don't see I benefit from any important or unimportant features in py3k. External libraries I rely on, I can benefit from --- But it would take SOME while to get those libraries ported to py3k, if ever. And I have been benefiting from Python in general, so far. Thanks, community. But now... I'll probably stop posting here for now, & I may stop other things too. Just my 2c. Sverker -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
