On Apr 17, 4:41 am, Sverker Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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'?
The Python community, more or less. The person I was replying to, specifically. > I don't see I benefit from any important or unimportant features in > py3k. I was talking about the features added in 2.x. Python 3.0 features haven't benefited many people (yet). [snip] > Just my 2c. If you don't mind me saying, I think you've given us quite a bit more than 2c in this thread. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
