On Jun 20, 8:33 pm, Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kap...@case.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:26 PM, John Salerno <johnj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I can't quite seem to find the answer to this anywhere. The book I'm > > reading right now was written for Python 3.1 and doesn't use (object), > > so I'm thinking that was just a way to force new-style classes in 2.x > > and is no longer necessary in 3.x. Is that right? > > > (The documentation doesn't mention object anymore, but elsewhere on > > the Python website it says the documentation hasn't been updated for > > new-style classes yet, hence my confusion.) > > > Thanks. > > 3.x got rid of old-style classes altogether, so you are correct- > there's no need to explicitly subclass object.
Thanks! And apologies for having to start a thread to ask just that! :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
