Re: new-style class or old-style class?
On Tuesday, 25 September 2012 20:14:05 UTC+5:30, Jayden wrote: In learning Python, I found there are two types of classes? Which one are widely used in new Python code? Is the new-style much better than old-style? Thanks!! Next time just Google your questions. :-) Good luck with Python -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new-style class or old-style class?
In article 2e8a9e88-9e7e-43f7-a070-ea9054e62...@googlegroups.com, Jayden jayden.s...@gmail.com wrote: In learning Python, I found there are two types of classes? Which one are widely used in new Python code? Is the new-style much better than old-style? Thanks!! If you're just learning Python 2.x, you might as well use new-style classes, since that's what all classes are in 3.x. On the other hand, if you're just learning, it probably doesn't matter which kind you use. Until you get into some pretty sophisticated stuff, you won't notice any difference between the two. On the third hand, all it takes to create a new-style class is to have it inherit from object. It's no big deal to write class Foo(object): instead of just class Foo: so you might as well use new-style classes :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new-style class or old-style class?
Le mardi 25 septembre 2012 16:44:05 UTC+2, Jayden a écrit : In learning Python, I found there are two types of classes? Which one are widely used in new Python code? Is the new-style much better than old-style? Thanks!! Use Python 3 and classes. --- The interesting point or my question. Why a Python beginner arrives here and should ask about this? jmf -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new-style class or old-style class?
On Sep 27, 6:15 am, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote: The interesting point or my question. Why a Python beginner arrives here and should ask about this? Would you prefer that they'd instead make some kind of false assumption and then post endless screeds condemning it? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new-style class or old-style class?
On 9/25/2012 8:44 AM, Jayden wrote: In learning Python, I found there are two types of classes? Which one are widely used in new Python code? Is the new-style much better than old-style? Thanks!! Perhaps this is useful: http://docs.python.org/reference/datamodel.html It's 3.3 I think. -- Take care, Ty http://tds-solutions.net The aspen project: a barebones light-weight mud engine: http://code.google.com/p/aspenmud He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new-style class or old-style class?
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Jayden jayden.s...@gmail.com wrote: In learning Python, I found there are two types of classes? Which one are widely used in new Python code? Is the new-style much better than old-style? Thanks!! Definitely go with new-style. In Python 3, old-style classes aren't supported, and the syntax that would create an old-style class in Python 2 will implicitly create a new-style class. (Explicitly subclassing object still works in Py3, so you can happily use that syntax for both.) ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new-style class or old-style class?
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:44:04 -0700, Jayden wrote: In learning Python, I found there are two types of classes? Which one are widely used in new Python code? New-style classes. Is the new-style much better than old-style? Yes. Always use new-style classes, unless you have some specific reason for needing old-style (classic) classes. Advantages of new-style classes: 1) They are the future. In Python 3, all classes are new-style and classic classes are gone. 2) Multiple inheritance works correctly. Multiple inheritance for classic classes is buggy. 3) New-style classes support awesome features like super(), properties, descriptors, and __getattribute__. Old-style do not. The main disadvantage is that automatic delegation is a pain to do correctly in new-style classes, but trivially simple in classic classes. Still, all things considered, it's a good trade. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new-style class or old-style class?
On 25/09/2012 17:20, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:44:04 -0700, Jayden wrote: In learning Python, I found there are two types of classes? Which one are widely used in new Python code? New-style classes. Is the new-style much better than old-style? Yes. Always use new-style classes, unless you have some specific reason for needing old-style (classic) classes. Advantages of new-style classes: 1) They are the future. In Python 3, all classes are new-style and classic classes are gone. 2) Multiple inheritance works correctly. Multiple inheritance for classic classes is buggy. 3) New-style classes support awesome features like super(), properties, descriptors, and __getattribute__. Old-style do not. The main disadvantage is that automatic delegation is a pain to do correctly in new-style classes, but trivially simple in classic classes. Still, all things considered, it's a good trade. Thanks for this reminder, my port of the J word code to Python has just been simplified :) -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
Steven Regrettably I have to reply to your post because it misses the point of my initial post completely. I suggested that Eric Raymond's advice provided cover for people who were rude, hostile or arrogant. There are two obvious responses: his advice does not provide such cover or it does but it does not matter. It make no assertions about any particular person or group of persons. It merely suggests that people who were disposed to rudeness could point to his article as supporting their approach. It was a plea that we conduct ourselves in a civil manner and treat other people with respect. I might be justified in assuming that you have spent some time working with politicians because you impute arguments to me that I do not make. At no point do I suggest that pointing somebody at Eric Raymond's advice is rude, hostile or arrogant, and your interpretation of my words to arrive at this is perverse. It may be that English is not your first language in which case such a slip could be excused. If not, it is evidence either of slipshod thinking or wilfull manipulation and obfuscation. If it is the latter then the post does not sit well in a forum that strives for accuracy. Had I written: The best response to those who *we assume* can not be bothered to do the necessary work is either no reply or a simple You would be well advised to do some research before asking your question. you would be justified in claiming that my advice was not to give any advice. I did not include the words 'we assume' and therefore my advice either to stop replying or to give a polite sign off was based on there being evidence that a person seeking advice could not be bothered i.e. there had been sufficient contact to allow that conclusion to be drawn in a reasonable manner. English is a language that permits great precision in conveying meaning. However, it is necessary on occasions to do some work and thinking in order to extract the writer's idea. You also seem to have overlooked that I state twice that Eric Raymond's advice is good or very good. I have no desire to to indulge in online verbal brawling but please take more care in drafting a reply, particularly in a situation where your interpretation of my post might lead others who post to believe that I thought them rude, hostile or arrogant. Bruce Coram Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 23:14:44 +, Bruce Coram wrote: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Eric Raymond's advice on how to ask questions the smart way would seem to provide an excuse for people with ego control problems to indulge themselves at the expense of others. While it is undoubtedly true that there are people who post who should spend more time reading and researching the problem, that is no excuse for replies that are rude, hostile or exhibit similar displays of ill-tempered arrogance. Pointing somebody at Eric Raymond's advice is neither rude, hostile or arrogant. It may be brusque. It may fail to sugar-coat the message sufficiently, and hurt some recipient's feelings, but that's their problem, not that of the sender. Eric Raymond should perhaps re-read his advice and re-draft it to avoid providing cover for those 'experts' who are either rude or ignorant - or both. Why don't you do so yourself? He solicits suggestions and revisions. Or ask for permission to fork the document and come up with your own. (You have to ask first, because as far as I can see the document is not released with an open licence.) If an 'expert' has time to indulge his/her ego is such an intemperate manner then he/she probably doesn't have enough to do, or enjoys being rude. Dare I suggest that perhaps YOU should read smart-questions? In particular, the bits where Raymond writes about RTFM: You shouldn't be offended by this; by hacker standards, your respondent is showing you a rough kind of respect simply by not ignoring you. You should instead be thankful for this grandmotherly kindness. Pointing somebody at smart-questions is a rather more polite form of RTFM. The best response to those who can not be bothered to do the necessary work is either no reply Ignoring people's request for help to punish them for poor behaviour is not only rude but it is counter-productive. Not only do you not solve their immediate problem, but you keep them in a state of ignorance as to why they are being shunned -- thus guaranteeing that they will invariably transgress again. or a simple You would be well advised to do some research before asking your question. Again leaving them no better off and still likely to transgress in the future. How much is some? What sort of research? Asking on Usenet is research isn't it? Why should I be expected to struggle with this on my own when there are people out there who already know the answer?
Re: new style class
Aahz wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nigel Rantor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what Boris was being exceedingly unhelpful in saying was why should it work when you're calling methods that do not exist http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Eric Raymond's advice on how to ask questions the smart way would seem to provide an excuse for people with ego control problems to indulge themselves at the expense of others. While it is undoubtedly true that there are people who post who should spend more time reading and researching the problem, that is no excuse for replies that are rude, hostile or exhibit similar displays of ill-tempered arrogance. Eric Raymond should perhaps re-read his advice and re-draft it to avoid providing cover for those 'experts' who are either rude or ignorant - or both. If an 'expert' has time to indulge his/her ego is such an intemperate manner then he/she probably doesn't have enough to do, or enjoys being rude. The best response to those who can not be bothered to do the necessary work is either no reply or a simple You would be well advised to do some research before asking your question. We do not need to make life any more difficult than it already is. Civility costs nothing. Eric Raymond's article, which offer's good advice, is rather misguided in not only providing an excuse for poor behaviour but almost actively encouraging it. This is a pity since the essence of the document is very good advice. Bruce Coram -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 23:14:44 +, Bruce Coram wrote: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Eric Raymond's advice on how to ask questions the smart way would seem to provide an excuse for people with ego control problems to indulge themselves at the expense of others. While it is undoubtedly true that there are people who post who should spend more time reading and researching the problem, that is no excuse for replies that are rude, hostile or exhibit similar displays of ill-tempered arrogance. Pointing somebody at Eric Raymond's advice is neither rude, hostile or arrogant. It may be brusque. It may fail to sugar-coat the message sufficiently, and hurt some recipient's feelings, but that's their problem, not that of the sender. Eric Raymond should perhaps re-read his advice and re-draft it to avoid providing cover for those 'experts' who are either rude or ignorant - or both. Why don't you do so yourself? He solicits suggestions and revisions. Or ask for permission to fork the document and come up with your own. (You have to ask first, because as far as I can see the document is not released with an open licence.) If an 'expert' has time to indulge his/her ego is such an intemperate manner then he/she probably doesn't have enough to do, or enjoys being rude. Dare I suggest that perhaps YOU should read smart-questions? In particular, the bits where Raymond writes about RTFM: You shouldn't be offended by this; by hacker standards, your respondent is showing you a rough kind of respect simply by not ignoring you. You should instead be thankful for this grandmotherly kindness. Pointing somebody at smart-questions is a rather more polite form of RTFM. The best response to those who can not be bothered to do the necessary work is either no reply Ignoring people's request for help to punish them for poor behaviour is not only rude but it is counter-productive. Not only do you not solve their immediate problem, but you keep them in a state of ignorance as to why they are being shunned -- thus guaranteeing that they will invariably transgress again. or a simple You would be well advised to do some research before asking your question. Again leaving them no better off and still likely to transgress in the future. How much is some? What sort of research? Asking on Usenet is research isn't it? Why should I be expected to struggle with this on my own when there are people out there who already know the answer? These are all reasonable thoughts that a poster might have. Then there are the unreasonable thoughts, like the poster who once told me off for asking for a traceback so we could see what his error was. He actually took the time to write to me to abuse me for wasting *his* time, when I could just as easily copy the code from his post, fix the broken indentation and typos, save it to a file and run it myself. How do you expect people to learn better if we follow your advice? We do not need to make life any more difficult than it already is. Following your advise will make life worse. Civility costs nothing. Teaching people to ask appropriate questions is being civil. Eric Raymond's article, which offer's good advice, is rather misguided in not only providing an excuse for poor behaviour but almost actively encouraging it. This is a pity since the essence of the document is very good advice. Shame you haven't understood it, because your suggestions are diametrically opposed to his message. Raymond's message is about teaching people how to learn for themselves. Your message is to ignore their request for help and let them keep floundering in the dark. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert wrote:
oops the code is like this but doesn't work
class Test(object):
def m1(self,v):
return v
def m2(v):
return v
if __name__ == '__main__':
gert = Test()
print gert.m1('1')
print Test.m2('2')
Well, what do you think:
In [9]: gert = Test()
In [10]: print gert.m1('1')
: print Test.m2('2')
:
1
---
type 'exceptions.TypeError' Traceback (most recent call last)
/home/wildemar/ipython console in module()
type 'exceptions.TypeError': unbound method m2() must be called with Test
instance as first argument (got str instance instead)
(Another hint: look at what m1 has that m2 lacks.)
/W
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:27 pm, Boris Borcic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gert wrote:
class Test(object):
def execute(self,v):
return v
def escape(v):
return v
if __name__ == '__main__':
gert = Test()
print gert.m1('1')
print Test.m2('2')
Why doesn't this new style class work in python 2.5.1 ?
why should it ?
I don't know I thought it was supported from 2.2?
I don't recall Python supporting non-existent method-calls (such
as m1/m2 when they aren't actually defined) in ANY version of Python.
But once you change that, you'll likely also want to investigate
the classmethod decorator if you want to create class-methods.
-tkc
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:27 pm, Boris Borcic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gert wrote:
class Test(object):
def execute(self,v):
return v
def escape(v):
return v
if __name__ == '__main__':
gert = Test()
print gert.m1('1')
print Test.m2('2')
Why doesn't this new style class work in python 2.5.1 ?
why should it ?
I don't know I thought it was supported from 2.2?
Look at the error you get.
Repeat: LOOK AT THE ERROR YOU GET!
(Hint: m1 not in (execute, escape))
Nothing to do with old- or new-style classes.
/W
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
On Nov 2, 12:31 pm, gert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:27 pm, Boris Borcic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gert wrote:
class Test(object):
def execute(self,v):
return v
def escape(v):
return v
if __name__ == '__main__':
gert = Test()
print gert.m1('1')
print Test.m2('2')
Why doesn't this new style class work in python 2.5.1 ?
why should it ?
I don't know I thought it was supported from 2.2?
oops the code is like this but doesn't work
class Test(object):
def m1(self,v):
return v
def m2(v):
return v
if __name__ == '__main__':
gert = Test()
print gert.m1('1')
print Test.m2('2')
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert == gert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: gert Why doesn't this new style class work in python 2.5.1 ? Whether you declare your class as a new style class or an old style class, your code is completely and utterly broken. Calling non-existing methods has never been a good way of getting things done. :-) Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
On Nov 2, 12:27 pm, Boris Borcic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gert wrote:
class Test(object):
def execute(self,v):
return v
def escape(v):
return v
if __name__ == '__main__':
gert = Test()
print gert.m1('1')
print Test.m2('2')
Why doesn't this new style class work in python 2.5.1 ?
why should it ?
I don't know I thought it was supported from 2.2?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert wrote: Could not one of you just say @staticmethod for once damnit :) I did, did I not ? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
Wildemar Wildenburger wrote: Bjoern Schliessmann wrote: No, since everyone's crystal balls are in repair. I don't even have crystal balls! Not many are rich *and* impotent. :) Regards, Björn -- BOFH excuse #14: sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert wrote: Could not one of you just say @staticmethod for once damnit :) why were you asking if you knew the answer? yeesh -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:27 pm, Boris Borcic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gert wrote:
class Test(object):
def execute(self,v):
return v
def escape(v):
return v
if __name__ == '__main__':
gert = Test()
print gert.m1('1')
print Test.m2('2')
Why doesn't this new style class work in python 2.5.1 ?
why should it ?
I don't know I thought it was supported from 2.2?
I think what Boris was being exceedingly unhelpful in saying was why
should it work when you're calling methods that do not exist
I don't see 'm1' or 'm2' defined for the class 'Test'.
n
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote: gert wrote: Could not one of you just say @staticmethod for once damnit :) No, since everyone's crystal balls are in repair. I don't even have crystal balls! /W -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert wrote:
class Test(object):
def execute(self,v):
return v
def escape(v):
return v
if __name__ == '__main__':
gert = Test()
print gert.m1('1')
print Test.m2('2')
Why doesn't this new style class work in python 2.5.1 ?
why should it ?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
On Nov 2, 4:04 pm, Boris Borcic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gert wrote: Could not one of you just say @staticmethod for once damnit :) I did, did I not ? i am sorry, yes you did :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
On Nov 2, 2:10 pm, Wildemar Wildenburger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bjoern Schliessmann wrote: gert wrote: Could not one of you just say @staticmethod for once damnit :) No, since everyone's crystal balls are in repair. I don't even have crystal balls! /W lol -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert wrote:
[...]
Why doesn't this new style class work in python 2.5.1 ?
why should it ?
I don't know I thought it was supported from 2.2?
oops the code is like this but doesn't work
class Test(object):
def m1(self,v):
return v
def m2(v):
return v
if __name__ == '__main__':
gert = Test()
print gert.m1('1')
print Test.m2('2')
You should put a '@staticmethod' decorator before your m2 method definition
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert wrote: oops the code is like this but doesn't work For sake of the god of your choice, please always provide runnable code as well as hints to - what you think it should do - what you want it to do - what exact error message(s) you get NOT just it doesn't work. Regards, Björn -- BOFH excuse #279: The static electricity routing is acting up... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
Could not one of you just say @staticmethod for once damnit :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
gert wrote: Could not one of you just say @staticmethod for once damnit :) No, since everyone's crystal balls are in repair. Regards, Björn -- BOFH excuse #256: You need to install an RTFM interface. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nigel Rantor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what Boris was being exceedingly unhelpful in saying was why should it work when you're calling methods that do not exist http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Typing is cheap. Thinking is expensive. --Roy Smith -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: new style class
En Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:58:32 -0300, gert [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Could not one of you just say @staticmethod for once damnit :) Do we have to read your mind now? You miss-typed the method names the first time. You could equally have forgotten to type the 'self' parameter. Don't you expect too much? BTW, most of the time staticmethods are NOT required at all. Using a plain function instead is perfectly valid unless you have a special reason to prefer a staticmethod. -- Gabriel Genellina -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
