Ilias Lazaridis wrote: > Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > Ilias Lazaridis wrote: > > > >> note: I am aware about search engines. > > > > but you're incapable of using them, or ?
Well, "Python new-style old-style classes" in Google gives a range of discussions, but an old version of the definitive guide [1] is found via one of the later results on the first page (which is some section of the reference manual). According to that and the newer guide [2], the official documentation still isn't updated, despite it having been a good three years since new-style classes first arrived in a real Python release. Of course, the lengthening paper trail shouldn't be a surprise to you or I, but with more "exciting" additions to the language in 2.5, it is somewhat unnerving that the last major changes still sit partially documented in "additional documentation" that a beginner wouldn't be inclined to read through. > >> I ask for documentation which other developers have found useful > > > > most recent Python books contains good discussions of the things you're > > asking for. maybe you should buy a book ? > > I'm interested in online resources, experiences etc.. And I don't see what's wrong with that. > Maybe you can clarify some things (for me and for readers): > > Do I need old style classes? No, but you can still use them. I use them a lot. > Does the python standard library use old style classes? Yes, I'd imagine, since it would otherwise have needed someone to go through the library and change everything, and I doubt that anyone is that interested to do so. > Have those old style classes any benefits? That you don't have to write the bizarre conceptual accident that is "(object)" when declaring a "top-level" class? Paul [1] http://www.python.org/doc/newstyle.html [2] http://www.python.org/doc/newstyle/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
