Aahz a écrit : > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Typically, classes are created as a subclass of another class. The >>top-level basic type in Python is 'object', so if your class doesn't >>make sense deriving from anything else, derive from 'object'. >> >> class Point(object): >> pass >> >>Defining a class with *no* superclass is not recommended. If you don't >>yet understand the difference between the above style (called a >>"new-style" class) and the style you presented, you should always >>derive from a superclass ('object' or something more specific) until >>you encounter a situation where that causes a problem. > > > Side note: I disagree with the above advice, but it's Thanksgiving and I > don't have enough room on the margin for the proof. I think classic > classes are just fine.
Don't see it as a religious point please, but I fail to understand why you seem so in love with old-style classes ? new-style classes are the "official" Python object model since 2.2 (which is a few years ago now), and the last mandatory use of them (exceptions...) disappeared with the 2.5. AFAIK, everything you do with old-style classes can be done with new-style ones. FWIW, old-style classes support is now only for backward compat. So *why* insisting on using them ? wondering... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list