Guido van Rossum wrote:
This is something I've typed way too many times:
Py class C():
File stdin, line 1
class C():
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
It's the asymmetry with functions that gets to me - defining a
function with no arguments still requires parentheses in the
On 2005 Feb 20, at 04:35, Jack Diederich wrote:
I always use new style classes so I only have to remember one set of
behaviors.
I agree: that's reason #1 I recommend always using new-style whenever I
teach / tutor / mentor in Python nowadays.
__metaclass__ = type is warty, it has the action at
Alex Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005 Feb 20, at 04:35, Jack Diederich wrote:
I didn't dig into the C but does having 'type'
as metaclass guarantee the same behavior as inheriting 'object' or
does object
provide something type doesn't? *wince*
I believe the former holds,
But... only as an additional option, not as a replacement, right?
Michael
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 03:01:14 -0500, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is something I've typed way too many times:
Py class C():
File stdin, line 1
class C():
^
This is something I've typed way too many times:
Py class C():
File stdin, line 1
class C():
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
It's the asymmetry with functions that gets to me - defining a
function with no arguments still requires parentheses in the
This is something I've typed way too many times:
Py class C():
File stdin, line 1
class C():
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
It's the asymmetry with functions that gets to me - defining a function with no
arguments still requires parentheses in the definition statement, but
On 2005 Feb 19, at 06:03, Nick Coghlan wrote:
This is something I've typed way too many times:
Py class C():
File stdin, line 1
class C():
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
It's the asymmetry with functions that gets to me - defining a
function with no arguments still requires
