On 12/11/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josiah Carlson wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Ian> Do not use accessor methods, like ``obj.getFoo()`` and > >> Ian> ``obj.setFoo(v)``, instead just expose a public attribute > >> Ian> (``obj.foo``). If necessary you can use ``property`` to implement > >> Ian> the same functionality that accessor methods would give you. > >> > >> Don't properties only work with new-style clsses? If so, this should > >> probably be noted. > > > > In the future, aren't all classes going to become new-style? Was it > > going to wait until Py3k, or sometime sooner? > > Going the Java route (no implicit base class) would be an interim step along > that road (i.e., a release or two where there is no default __metaclass__ > fallback). > > Any old code could be fixed by putting "from types import ClassType as > __metaclass__" at the top of the affected modules.
I'm not sure what you are proposing and I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve. The plan for new-style vs. classic classes is simple and doesn't need to change (IMO): until Py3k, the status quo will remain; in Py3k, there is only new-style (except if you use a custom metaclass). (That said, I'm all for exceptions becoming new-style in 2.5.) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
