On Dec 19, 10:55 am, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 18, 3:16 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 18, 10:08 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We are trying to monkey-patch a third-party library that mixes new and > > > old-style classes with multiple inheritance. > > > New library? Geez, if people are dumb enough to do this, are you sure > > you want your application to depend on their library? > > > Sometimes you have to work with code that's not up to your standards, > > but come on. > > Doing the armchair code reviewer without context is easy but my guess > would be that the old style library classes were written long before > the new style ones (perhaps even before the latter were introduced) > and/or written independently by different developers/groups, without > any plan to mix the two in the future. Also remember that up to 2.4 > even the standard exception classes were old-style so it's not safe to > assume that you only have new style classes to worry about when the > very standard library includes lots of legacy code.
It's not the use of old-style classes, or even old-style and new-style in the same package. It's multiple inheritance combining old- and new- style classes that's so wrong here. They should have converted the old-style to new when they decided to derive from both types (it's not like that's terribly difficult). Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list