<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/16/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Talin</b> <<a href="mailto:talin@acm.org">talin@acm.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Lawrence Oluyede wrote:<br>>> That was my first thought as well. Unfortunately a quick test shows<br>>> that class Foo(): creates an old style class instead :(<br>><br>> I think that's because until it'll be safe to break things we will
<br>> stick with classic by default...<br><br>But in this case nothing will be broken, since the () syntax was<br>formerly not allowed, so it won't appear in any existing code. So it<br>would have been a good opportunity to shift over to increased usage
<br>new-style classes without breaking anything.<br><br>Thus, 'class Foo:' would create a classic class, but 'class Foo():'<br>would create a new-style class.<br><br>However, once it's released as 2.5 that will no longer be the case, as
<br>people might start to use () to indicate a classic class. Oh well.</blockquote><div><br>We didn't want there to suddenly be a way to make a new-style class that didn't explicitly subclass 'object'.<br><br>-Brett<br></div>
<br></div>