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(): > > > ^ > > > 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 defining a class with no bases requires the > > > parentheses to be omitted. > > > > Seconded. It's always irked me enough that it's the only ``apology'' > > for Python syntax you'll see in the Nutshell -- top of p. 71, "The > > syntax of the class statement has a small, tricky difference from that > > of the def statement" etc. > > +1 For me, this would come-up when experimenting with mixins. Adding and > removing a mixin usually entailed a corresponding > change to the parentheses. > > > Raymond > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/michael.walter%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
