> From a code style perspective, I've always felt that the magical
> __underscore__ names should not be referred to ouside of the class
> implementing those names. The double underscores are an indication that
> this method or property is in most normal use cases referred to
> implicitly by use ra
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 07:29:51PM -0700, Talin wrote:
> tomer filiba wrote:
> > that's surly anachronism :)
> >
> > o.__class__ is a little more typing and will surely scare newbies.
> > moreover, type(x) and x.__class__ can return different things
> > (you can fool __class__, but not type()).
>
tomer filiba wrote:
> that's surly anachronism :)
>
> o.__class__ is a little more typing and will surely scare newbies.
> moreover, type(x) and x.__class__ can return different things
> (you can fool __class__, but not type()).
>
> for my part, i'm fine with any form that makes a distinction bet
that's surly anachronism :)
o.__class__ is a little more typing and will surely scare newbies.
moreover, type(x) and x.__class__ can return different things
(you can fool __class__, but not type()).
for my part, i'm fine with any form that makes a distinction between
the metaclass "type" and the
