[Python-Dev] Requesting that a class be a new-style class
mwh at python.net
Sat Feb 19 21:27:13 CET 2005
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at iinet.net.au> writes:
> This is something I've typed way too many times:
> Py> class C():
> File "<stdin>", 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.
Yeah, this has annoyed me for ages too.
However! You obviously haven't read Misc/HISTORY recently enough :)
The surprising thing is that "class C():" used to work (in fact before
0.9.4 the parens mandatory). It became a syntax error in 0.9.9,
seemingly because Guido was peeved that people hadn't updated all
their old code to the new syntax. I wonder if he'd like to try that
trick again today :)
I'd still vote for it to be changed.
> Which leads in to the real question: Does this *really* need to be a
> syntax error? Or could it be used as an easier way to spell "class
-1. Too magical, too opaque.
> Then, in Python 3K, simply drop support for omitting the parentheses
> from class definitions - require inheriting from ClassicClass
HISTORY repeats itself...
[Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion
different sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines
the power of C with the readability of PostScript. -- Jamie Zawinski
More information about the Python-Dev