On 9/9/05, Michael Chermside <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it would
> provide a REALLY nice migration path if it were possible to write
> Python 3.0 code in Python 2.x (for large values of x) so long as you
> included an appropriate preamble of "from __future__ import" statements.
Perhaps I
On 9/9/05, holger krekel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It matters because "metaclass = type" is completely obscure. How would
> > any non-expert have a clue what it means?
>
> How would this non-expert have a clue what
> "from __future__ import new_style_classes" means?
>
That is the point!
Can you all just stop discussing this? In the last 4 contributions
nothing has been added that hasn't been said yet. It's not going to
change. Get used to it.There are more important issues.
On 9/9/05, Russell E. Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTE
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (holger krekel) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:31 -0700, Russell E. Owen wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Tristan Seligmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why does it matter if the single statement you insert is spelle
Lisandro Dalcín proposes:
> Any possibility to add something like
>
> from __future__ import new_style_classes
Tristan Seligmann writes:
> Why does it matter if the single statement you insert is spelled
> " metaclass = type" instead of "from future import whatever"?
Russell Owen responds:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:31 -0700, Russell E. Owen wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tristan Seligmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Why does it matter if the single statement you insert is spelled
> > " metaclass = type" instead of "from future import whatever"?
> > Rememb
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tristan Seligmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Lisandro Dalcin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-08 13:56:07 -0300]:
>
> > Yes, you are right. But this way, you are making explicit a behavior
> > that will be implicit in the future.
> >
> > For example, we could als
* Lisandro Dalcin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-08 13:56:07 -0300]:
> Yes, you are right. But this way, you are making explicit a behavior
> that will be implicit in the future.
>
> For example, we could also do:
>
> two = float(4)/float(2)
>
> instead of
>
> from __future__ import div
On 9/8/05, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You can already do
>
> __metaclass__ = type
>
> within each module
>
Yes, you are right. But this way, you are making explicit a behavior
that will be implicit in the future.
For example, we could also do:
two = float(4)/float(2)
instead of
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>
> Any possibility to add something like
>
> from __future__ import new_style_classes
>
> to have newly defined classes implicitly derive from 'object' (I
> understand this will be the implicit behavior when classic classes go
> away in Py3.0).
You
PEP 3000 - Core language says
(http://www.python.org/peps/pep-3000.html#core-language) :
- Support only new-style classes; classic classes will be gone
Any possibility to add something like
from __future__ import new_style_classes
to have newly defined classes implicitly derive from 'object' (I
11 matches
Mail list logo
