Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Yeah, this has annoyed me for ages too. However! You obviously haven't read Misc/HISTORY recently enough :) The surprising thing is that "class C():" used to work (in fact before 0.9.4 the parens mandatory). It became a syntax error in 0.9.9, seemingly because Guido was peeved that people hadn't updated all their old code to the new syntax. I wonder if he'd like to try that trick again today :) I'd still vote for it to be changed. > Which leads in to the real question: Does this *really* need to be a > syntax error? Or could it be used as an easier way to spell "class > C(object):"? -1. Too magical, too opaque. > Then, in Python 3K, simply drop support for omitting the parentheses > from class definitions - require inheriting from ClassicClass > instead. HISTORY repeats itself... Cheers, mwh -- [Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski _______________________________________________ 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
