[Python-Dev] Requesting that a class be a new-style class (original) (raw)

Jack Diederich jack at performancedrivers.com
Sun Feb 20 04:35:38 CET 2005

On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 12:13:25PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:

Guido van Rossum wrote: >>>This is something I've typed way too many times: >>> >>>Py> class C(): >>> File "", line 1 >>> class C(): >>> ^ >>>SyntaxError: invalid syntax >>> >>>It's the asymmetry with functions that gets to me - defining a >>>function with no arguments still requires parentheses in the >>>definition statement, but defining a class with no bases requires the >>>parentheses to be omitted. > > >It's fine to fix this in 2.5. I guess I can add this to my list of >early oopsies -- although to the very bottom. :-) > >It's not fine to make C() mean C(object). (We already have enough >other ways to declaring new-style classes.) >

Fair enough - the magnitude of the semantic difference between "class C:" and "class C():" bothered me a little, too. I'll just have to remember that I can put "metaclass == type" at the top of modules :)

I always use new style classes so I only have to remember one set of behaviors. "metaclass = type" is warty, it has the "action at a distance" problem that decorators solve for functions. I didn't dig into the C but does having 'type' as metaclass guarantee the same behavior as inheriting 'object' or does object provide something type doesn't? wince

Py3k? Faster please[*].

-Jack

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list