py3k s***s

[Carl Banks]

On Apr 17, 4:41 am, Sverker Nilsson <s... at sncs.se> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:02 am, Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 12:40 pm, Aaron Watters <aaron.watt... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 12:27 pm, Rhamphoryncus <rha... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 16, 6:56 am, Aaron Watters <aaron.watt... at gmail.com> 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.
>
> > The deeper issue is that you're benefiting from these "unimportant"
> > changes even if you never use them yourself.
>
> > Carl Banks
>
> That just seems a BIT categorical for a statement. Who is 'you'?

The Python community, more or less.  The person I was replying to,
specifically.


> I don't see I benefit from any important or unimportant features in
> py3k.

I was talking about the features added in 2.x.  Python 3.0 features
haven't benefited many people (yet).


[snip]
> Just my 2c.

If you don't mind me saying, I think you've given us quite a bit more
than 2c in this thread.


Carl Banks