I'm sorry, but a Reuben with no 'kraut is just a corned beef sandwich. :-)
Marc Tompkins wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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]> > > <mailto:[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> < > http://www.fsrtechnologies.com> > > > > > -- > www.fsrtechnologies.com <http://www.fsrtechnologies.com> > > > > > -- > www.fsrtechnologies.com <http://www.fsrtechnologies.com> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor > _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
