Hi.
Referring to my discussion on [1] and then on #python this afternoon.
A little background would help people to understand where this was
coming from.
1. I write Python 2 code and have done zero Python-3 specific code.
2. I have always been using class Foo(object) so I do not know the new
style is no longer required in Python 3. I feel "stupid" and "wrong" by
thinking (object) is still a convention in Python 3.
3. Many Python 2 tutorials do not use object as the base class whether
for historical reason, or lack of information/education, and can cause
confusing to newcomers searching for answers when they consult the
official documentation.
While Python 3 code no longer requires object be the base class for the
new-style class definition, I believe (object) is still required if one
has to write a 2-3 compatible code. But this was not explained or warned
anywhere in Python 2 and Python 3 code, AFAIK. (if I am wrong, please
correct me)
I propose the followings:
* It is desirable to state boldly to users that (object) is no longer
needed in Python-3 **only** code and warn users to revert to (object)
style if the code needs to be 2 and 3 compatible.
* In addition, Python 2 doc [2] should be fixed by introducing the
new-style classes. This problem was noted a long long time ago according
to [4].
* I would like to see warnings from suggested action item 1 on [2] and
[3], for python 2 and 3 documentations.
Possible objections(s):
* We are pushing toward Python 3, some years later we don't need to
maintain both Python 2 and 3 code. And many people, especially the
newcomers will probably have no need to maintain Python 2 and 3
compatible codes.
My answer to that is we need to be careful with marketing. First, it is
a little embarrassing to assume and to find out the assumption is not
entirely accurate. Secondly, Python 2 will not go away any time soon and
most tutorials available on the Internet today are still written for
Python 2. Furthermore, this CAN be a "gotcha" for new developers knowing
only Python 3 writing Python 2 & 3 compatible code.
* Books can do a better job
I haven't actually reviewed/read any Python 3 books knowing most of my
code should work without bothering Python 3-2 incompatibility yet.
So I don't have an accurate answer, but a very very quick glance over a
popular Python 3 book (I am not sure if naming it out is ethical or not
so I am going to grey it out here) the book just writes class Foo: and
doesn't note the different between 2 and 3 with classes. It is not wrong
since the book is about programming in Python 3, NOT writing 2 and 3,
but this is where the communication breaks. Docs and books don't give
all the answers needed.
P.S. Sorry if I should've have asked on #python-dev first or made a
ticket but I've decided to send to mailing list before making a bug ticket.
First time!
Thanks.
Best,
Yeuk Hon
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8154471
[2]: https://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/classes.html
https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html
[3]: https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/classes.html
[4]: https://www.python.org/doc/newstyle/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
