On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: > On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:50 AM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote: >> >> I think that we should consider requests to make specific classes new- >> style (and grant them when doing so won't cause compatibility problems), >> make all new classes new-style, but otherwise leave this alone until 3.x >> is widely adopted. > > While your argument makes sense to me, there's a fundamental problem with > the way Python introduced new-style classes that creates an ongoing > maintenance tension. I think we should start addressing the problem > incrementally now (especially since it sounded like Kelly was volunteering > for some work!) rather than put it off for one big chunk when we do a 3k > migration.
Well yes I am. I am hoping that the discussion will get to a point where I understand what an acceptable solution might be, even if that should be like exarkun said "leave it alone/migrate classes one at a time". > > I would really like a more abstract declaration that applications can use in > the meanwhile, to get new-style semantics but still allow inheritable > classes to evolve. > As noted by James, users of the Twisted library can add object to the end of their inheritance chain to get new style semantics for their classes. I was thinking more along the lines of being able to use new-style stuff inside the Twisted library. _______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
