pavlovevidence at gmail.com
Thu Apr 17 13:06:22 CEST 2008
On Apr 17, 4:41 am, Sverker Nilsson <s... at sncs.se> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:02 am, Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters <aaron.watt... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <rha... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <aaron.watt... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I don't get it. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
> > > > So how would you have done the old-style class to new-style class
> > > > transition?
> > > I'd ignore it. I never understood it and never had
> > > any need for it anyway. New-style classes and metaclasses
> > > were a complicated solution to an unimportant problem in
> > > my opinion. And also a fiendish way to make code
> > > inscrutible -- which I thought was more of a Perl thing
> > > than a Python thing, or should be.
> > > I must be missing some of the deeper issues here. Please
> > > educate me.
> > The deeper issue is that you're benefiting from these "unimportant"
> > changes even if you never use them yourself.
> > Carl Banks
> That just seems a BIT categorical for a statement. Who is 'you'?
The Python community, more or less. The person I was replying to,
> I don't see I benefit from any important or unimportant features in
I was talking about the features added in 2.x. Python 3.0 features
haven't benefited many people (yet).
> Just my 2c.
If you don't mind me saying, I think you've given us quite a bit more
than 2c in this thread.
More information about the Python-list