Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
> On 9/16/06, Lawrence Oluyede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I think that this change should be presented at
>>> http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/whatsnew25.html
>> It's already listed there:
>> http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/other-lang.html
>>
>
> Thanks... also, I
Talin wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> As for the reason: it makes it possible to use the same style for classes
>> without bases as is used for functions without arguments. Prior to this
>> change, there was a sharp break in the class syntax, such that if you got
>> rid
>> of the last base clas
On 9/16/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lawrence Oluyede wrote:>> That was my first thought as well. Unfortunately a quick test shows>> that class Foo(): creates an old style class instead :(>> I think that's because until it'll be safe to break things we will
> stick with classic by defaul
Talin wrote:
> Is the result a new-style or classic-style class? It would be nice if
> using the empty parens forced a new-style class...
No, it wouldn't, IMO. Too subtle a clue.
Best to just wait for Py3k when all classes will
be new-style.
--
Greg
_
Lawrence Oluyede wrote:
>> That was my first thought as well. Unfortunately a quick test shows
>> that class Foo(): creates an old style class instead :(
>
> I think that's because until it'll be safe to break things we will
> stick with classic by default...
But in this case nothing will be b
> That was my first thought as well. Unfortunately a quick test shows
> that class Foo(): creates an old style class instead :(
I think that's because until it'll be safe to break things we will
stick with classic by default...
--
Lawrence
http://www.oluyede.org/blog
_
On 9/16/06, Lawrence Oluyede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that this change should be presented at
> > http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/whatsnew25.html
>
> It's already listed there: http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/other-lang.html
>
Thanks... also, I don't know if the empty yield s
On 9/16/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > As for the reason: it makes it possible to use the same style for classes
> > without bases as is used for functions without arguments. Prior to this
> > change, there was a sharp break in the class syntax, such that if you got
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> As for the reason: it makes it possible to use the same style for classes
> without bases as is used for functions without arguments. Prior to this
> change, there was a sharp break in the class syntax, such that if you got rid
> of the last base class you had to get rid of
Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
> I've been porting the grammar for pydev to version 2.5 and I've seen
> that you can now declare a class in the format: class B():pass
> (without the testlist)
>
> -- from the grammar: classdef: 'class' NAME ['(' [testlist] ')'] ':' suite
>
> I think that this change should
> I think that this change should be presented at
> http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/whatsnew25.html
It's already listed there: http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/other-lang.html
--
Lawrence
http://www.oluyede.org/blog
___
Python-Dev mailing list
I've been porting the grammar for pydev to version 2.5 and I've seen
that you can now declare a class in the format: class B():pass
(without the testlist)
-- from the grammar: classdef: 'class' NAME ['(' [testlist] ')'] ':' suite
I think that this change should be presented at
http://docs.python.
12 matches
Mail list logo