At 08:25 01.01.2004 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:

...

I still think that depending on <...> reprs should be non-portable and discouraged, also CPython is already rather whimsical in its own evolution (Python 2.3):

...

...

...

class X: pass ... X <class __main__.X at 0x007E2C30> class X(object): pass ... X <class '__main__.X'>

I may change my opinion if someone writes a (unit) test pinning down what is exactly meant by that somewhat.

That's a good point. I'll add a SF entry to request these unit tests.

What you see as whimsical was actually done for compatibility reasons; the new-style classes look more like built-in classes, whose repr is <type 'int'> or perhaps <type 'module.C'>. (It says 'type' if it's pure C, 'class' if it was created by a Python class statement.)

yes, but from the point of view of a classic -> new-style migration is not really compatible. <class __main__.X> <class __main__.X at ...> <class '__main__.X' at ...> <type '__main__.X' at ...> seem also reasonable variations for a new-style X. I understand that the first output is from class_repr while the second is from the evolution of type_repr. The problem is that what was expected (as compatible) isn't defined.