why are people still using classic classes?

[Bengt Richter]

On 12 Jan 2005 20:06:39 -0800, Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

>Simon Wittber <simonwittber at gmail.com> writes:
>> > Is there a reason NOT to use them?  If a classic class works fine, what
>> > incentive is there to switch to new style classes?  
>> 
>> Perhaps classic classes will eventually disappear?
>
>It just means that the formerly "classic" syntax will define a
>new-style class.  Try to write code that works either way.
>
>It would be nice if a __future__ directive were added right now (if
>it's not there already) that processes all class definitions as
>new-style.  Otherwise there's no easy way to test for compatibility.

UIAM, it's not so bad:

 >>> class C: pass
 ...
 >>> type(C)
 <type 'classobj'>
 >>> class D(object): pass
 ...
 >>> type(D)
 <type 'type'>
 >>> __metaclass__ = type
 >>> class E: pass
 ...
 >>> type(E)
 <type 'type'>

So I guess you can put __metaclass__ = type where you would have done the __future__ thing.

If you want to do a special metaclass thing (even using a proper class ;-),
you can override the global __metaclass__

 >>> def MC(*a): print a; return type(*a)
 ...
 >>> class F:
 ...     __metaclass__ = MC
 ...     pass
 ...
 ('F', (), {'__module__': '__main__', '__metaclass__': <function MC at 0x02EE8D4C>})

Regards,
Bengt Richter