On 3/3/06, kirby urner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not really -- just cuz I don't want to explain the difference and > old-style is even simpler syntax. My expectation, maybe wrong, is by > the time these kids are old enough to use Python "on the job", the > old-style syntax will automatically create a new style class (as the > old style will have gone away).
I was thinking (no experience to back this up, unfortunately) that by starting from day one to use the new style, it would be much easier to introduce inheritance. That's what I plan to do in rur-ple lessons. (With a note somewhere pointing out the existence of old style classes.) André > > I always think of "classic Coke" versus "the new Coke" (as in Coca > Cola) when I write about this stuff. Old timer that I must be by now. > > Kirby > > > On 3/3/06, Andre Roberge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/3/06, kirby urner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So with my 8th graders this week, we were back to writing a class. > > > Here's the eventual definition: > > > > > > class Monkey: > > > > > [snip] Very nice example deleted... > > > > Kirby: any reason why you use "old style" classes? > > > > André > > > _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
