2005/10/17, Adrian Holovaty <
holo...@gmail.com>:
>
> On 10/17/05, Shaleh <
sean....@xensource.com> wrote:
> > Why is that? Moving forward the Python people expect all classes to be
> > defined as "new-style". Support for old-style is there simply to allow
> > for backwards compatibility.
>
> Because we haven't taken the time to subclass "object" in class definitions?
A quick investigation
5)15:05:20 eura@ac8er:~/src/django/svn/django/trunk/django
0$ grep -R "class[^(]*:" $(find . -name "*.py")|grep -v \.svn|wc -l
100
seems to reveal that there are only 100 old style classes on [1006].
Adrian are you interested in a patch about that trivial task?
--
Carlo C8E Miron, ICQ #26429731
--
Disclaimer:
If I receive a message from you, you are agreeing that:
1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient".
2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and
make such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it
lends itself to. In particular, I may quote it on USENET or the WWW.
3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company.
4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that
may be included on your message.