Aahz a écrit : > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Felipe Almeida Lessa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Em Ter, 2006-04-11 Ã s 07:17 -0700, Aahz escreveu: >> >>>Can, yes. But should it? The whole point of adding the () option to >>>classes was to ease the learning process for newbies who don't >>>understand why classes have a different syntax from functions. Having >>> >>>class C(): pass >>> >>>behave differently from >>> >>>class C: pass >>> >>>would be of no benefit for that purpose. >> >>Why should a newbie use an old-style class? > > > Because that's the default. Because lots of existing code still uses > classic classes, so you need to learn them anyway. Because you can't use > new-style classes in code intended for 2.1 or earlier; because of the > changes made in 2.3, I don't particularly recommend new-style classes for > 2.2. Because even the second edition of _Learning Python_ (targeted at > Python 2.3) doesn't cover new-style classes much, so I'm certainly not > alone in believing that new-style classes are better avoided for newbies.
Well, old-style classes are perfect to confuse the newbie. After all, there's nothing like adding a "property" in a class and wondering why it does not work as expected. What would be a language without horrible pitfalls ? Newbies would have it easy and they have no right for an easy language ! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
