And here's another reason to use new-style: I forgot the sauerkraut! Oh, the horror!
On Nov 15, 2007 1:42 PM, Marc Tompkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought of an analogy I like better than my sign-painting one: ordering > a sandwich. > Imagine: you're at the deli, and your waitron asks what you want. > (Granted, this is a silly example.) > "Classic" order: "I'd like a sandwich with two slices of rye bread, > Russian dressing, corned beef, and Swiss cheese. Oh, and I'd like that > grilled." > "New-style" order: "Reuben, please." > > Now, I speak not of the time and materials required to construct the > above-mentioned tasty treat - in my analogy, Python is the long-suffering > waitron, not the cook - but I gotta figure that the second option will take > less space to write on the check. Perhaps about 134 bytes' worth. > > For some reason I'm hungry now... > > > On Nov 15, 2007 11:22 AM, Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Marc Tompkins wrote: > > > I didn't mean that exactly literally - for goodness' sake, this is a > > > high-level, object-oriented, interpreted language! We're not writing > > > machine language here. > > > > Yes, I was thinking I should re-word my email, it was worded a bit too > > strongly... > > > > > What I did mean, and will probably still not express as clearly as I'd > > > like, is that when you create a "classic" class, lots of options > > remain > > > unresolved - slots vs. dict comes to mind - and Python needs to > > reserve > > > extra space accordingly. About 134 extra bytes, it would appear. > > > > Still not sure I know what you mean. AFAIK old-style classes don't > > support slots, at least not user-defined slots. I do remember talk of > > new-style classes and properties allowing a much cleaner implementation > > of the class mechanisms, and it seems plausible that such generalization > > > > would lead to fewer options and streamlining of the class structure, but > > I don't know enough about the specifics to know if that is right. > > > > I poked around a bit in the source to see if I could figure it out but > > got tired of trying to sift through the header files... > > > > Kent > > > > > > On Nov 15, 2007 9:32 AM, Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > Marc Tompkins wrote: > > > > > > > class B is a "new-style' class, meaning that it inherits from a > > base, > > > > pre-existing class (in this case "object", which is as basic > > and > > > generic > > > > as you can get!). class A has to start from nothing, which is > > why it > > > > consumes more memory yet has less functionality. > > > > > > I don't think it is really accurate to say that an old-style class > > > "starts from nothing". It doesn't have an explicit base class but > > it > > > does have all the old-style class machinery which is built in to > > Python. > > > > > > I don't know why new-style classes are smaller though. My guess is > > that > > > it is because there was an opportunity to streamline the class > > structure > > > based on experience. > > > > > > Kent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > www.fsrtechnologies.com < http://www.fsrtechnologies.com> > > > > > > > -- > www.fsrtechnologies.com -- www.fsrtechnologies.com
_______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
