tomer filiba wrote: > that's surly anachronism :) > > o.__class__ is a little more typing and will surely scare newbies. > moreover, type(x) and x.__class__ can return different things > (you can fool __class__, but not type()). > > for my part, i'm fine with any form that makes a distinction between > the metaclass "type" and the inquire-type "type". > call it o.__class__, gettype() or typeof(), just don't mix that with > the metaclass
From a code style perspective, I've always felt that the magical __underscore__ names should not be referred to ouside of the class implementing those names. The double underscores are an indication that this method or property is in most normal use cases referred to implicitly by use rather than explicitly by name; Thus str() invokes __str__ and so on. -- Talin _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
