Aahz a écrit :
(snip)
> Enh. *All* of the standard Python documentation currently starts with
> teaching classic classes,
(snip)
> There is almost no basic documentation
> that starts with new-style classes;
(snip)
Just for the record:
http://docs.python.org/ref/node33.html
http://www.python.org
Aahz a écrit :
(snip)
> *YOU* are the one confusing people by your dogmatic insistance that
> classic classes should be ignored. Grow up.
I did. I still do. With every new Python release. I'm sorry for you that
you are still stuck with almost prehistoric Python versions, but I don't
accept th
On Jul 20, 5:47 am, Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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 t
George Sakkis a écrit :
> On Jul 20, 5:40 am, Bruno Desthuilliers [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Aahz a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
To make a long story short: Python 2.2 introduced a new object model
which is more
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aahz a écrit :
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> To make a long story short: Python 2.2 introduced a new object model
>>> which is more coherent and more pow
On Jul 20, 5:40 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Aahz a écrit :
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> To make a long story short: Python 2.2 introduced a new object model
> >> which is more coherent and more powerful than the original one. T
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:42:54 -0700, 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 sti
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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...)
Can you post an example that we can benchma
Aahz a écrit :
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To make a long story short: Python 2.2 introduced a new object model
>> which is more coherent and more powerful than the original one. The old
>> one was kept so far for compatibility reasons, b
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 p
>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 n
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 documen
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 t
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.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>To make a long story short: Python 2.2 introduced a new object model
>which is more coherent and more powerful than the original one. The old
>one was kept so far for compatibility reasons, but there's absolutely n
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:31:06 +, nvictor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not an experienced developer, and I came across this statement by
> reading a code. I search for explanation, but can't find anything
> meaningful. I read the entire document written by python's creator
> about the features of versi
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:40:24 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there's absolutely no reason to use it no more since "new-style" classes
> can do anything "Classic" classes did and much more. IOW, don't even
> bother with old-style classes.
Just for the records: the
nvictor a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I'm not an experienced developer, and I came across this statement by
> reading a code. I search for explanation, but can't find anything
> meaningful. I read the entire document written by python's creator
> about the features of version 2.2 The one named unifying type
Hi,
I'm not an experienced developer, and I came across this statement by
reading a code. I search for explanation, but can't find anything
meaningful. I read the entire document written by python's creator
about the features of version 2.2 The one named unifying types and
classes. But This docume
19 matches
Mail list logo
