What are new-style classes?

[Vaibhav]

I recently heard about 'new-style classes'. I am very sorry if this
sounds like a newbie question, but what are they? I checked the Python
Manual but did not find anything conclusive. Could someone please
enlighten me? Thanks!

[Steve Holden]

Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:

Terry Hancock wrote:

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 04:09 pm, Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:

The customary way is to use "class new_class(objec t):". There's no advantage in using
__metaclass_ _ except that you can set it globally for all classes in that module
(which can be confusing on its own).

My comment mostly referred to "new-style classes must be declared as a subclass of
a new-style class", which is not true.

Nonsense.

Given the rest of your post, I assume that this isn't meant as it sounds. Remember, I'm
German, so please bear with my sense of humour. ;)

German? Humour? Surely some mistake :-)

not-talking-about-the-war-ly y'rs - steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

[Reinhold Birkenfeld]

Steve Holden wrote:

Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:

Terry Hancock wrote:

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 04:09 pm, Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:

The customary way is to use "class new_class(objec t):". There's no advantage in using
__metaclass __ except that you can set it globally for all classes in that module
(which can be confusing on its own).

My comment mostly referred to "new-style classes must be declared as a subclass of
a new-style class", which is not true.

Nonsense.

Given the rest of your post, I assume that this isn't meant as it sounds. Remember, I'm
German, so please bear with my sense of humour. ;)

German? Humour? Surely some mistake :-)

Hm, should have added "if any" above...
not-talking-about-the-war-ly y'rs - steve

No surprise it was the Brits who discovered the world's deadliest joke.

Reinhold

[Terry Hancock]

On Wednesday 31 August 2005 12:14 pm, Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:

Steve Holden wrote:

Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:

>My comment mostly referred to "new-style classes must be declared as a subclass of
>a new-style class", which is not true.

Nonsense.

Given the rest of your post, I assume that this isn't meant as it sounds. Remember, I'm
German, so please bear with my sense of humour. ;)

Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek.

However, there *was* some truth in what I said:

Python *does* indicate implementation details with the
"ignore the man behind the curtain" approach of marking
them with "_" or "__".

Yes, that is the only kind of encapsulation Python really
gives you -- you have to play by the rules if you want
those advantages, and one of the rules is to pretend you
don't see those magic methods.

Except when you really, really need to, of course.

Also, we have to remember that this was a *newbie* question,
so I gave a newbie-approved answer -- I told the "right"
way to do it.

And of course, there is something slightly comical about
this. But you should expect that from a language named
after a comedy troupe, shouldn't you?

The fact that I did this because I didn't know about the
other way is totally unimportant! :-P

You are such a rude man for displaying your intellectual
superiority like that. Fie!

Actually, I was thinking seriously about trying to use the
exact wording of Douglas Adams from "Hitchhiker 's" (approx):
"We have normality, therefore anything you still can't cope
with is your own problem". But it didn't quite fit, and
the other possible reference to the "Son of the Invisible
Man" skit*, was just way too obscure. I doubt you've ever
seen it.

*I think this was in "Amazon Women on the Moon", though it
may have been "Kentucky Fried Movie". Both are TV spoofs.

And, yes, of course, I'm glad you posted about this detail,
I learned something from it, which is why I read this list.

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispacework s.com )
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com