On 10/14/2013 7:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by all of these - I've known Python for
only a (relatively) short time, wasn't there in the 1.x days (much
less the <1.0 days). But according to its history page, the early 1.x
versions of Python predate the widespread adoption of Unicode, so it's
a little unfair to look with 2013 eyes and say that full true Unicode
support should have been there from the start.
The first versions of Python and unicode were developed and released
about the same time. No one knew that either would be as successful as
they have become over two decades.
Old-style classes vs. new-style classes.
By the time I started using Python, new-style classes existed and were
the recommended way to do things, so I never got the "feel" for
old-style classes. I assume there was a simplicity to them, since
Too simple. All user classes were instances of the userclass type. All
user instances were instances of the userinstance type, or something
like that. There were otherwise separate from builtin types. I have
forgotten the details and have no wish to remember.
The system was usable but klutzy. I believe it was an add-on after the
initial release. People wanted to be able to subclass builtins even back
in 1.4 days, but Guido did not realized how to use the obscure metaclass
hook to do so until 2.2 was being developed. Most core devs are happy to
be rid of them (except when patching 2.7).
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
