On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Since you don't care about any of the changes or features, and you don't care if your users care, I'm not sure why you aren't just using python 2.1. It's not like it's being erased via time machine. "Just keep using the old thing" is a perfectly valid and extremely common futureproofing scenario. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
