RetroSearch Browse

Sat Feb 19 08:55:44 CET 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051695.html

On 2005 Feb 19, at 06:03, Nick Coghlan wrote:

> This is something I've typed way too many times:
>
> Py> class C():
>   File "<stdin>", line 1
>     class C():
>             ^
> SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>
> It's the asymmetry with functions that gets to me - defining a 
> function with no arguments still requires parentheses in the 
> definition statement, but defining a class with no bases requires the 
> parentheses to be omitted.

Seconded.  It's always irked me enough that it's the only ``apology'' 
for Python syntax you'll see in the Nutshell -- top of p. 71, "The 
syntax of the class statement has a small, tricky difference from that 
of the def statement" etc.

> Which leads in to the real question: Does this *really* need to be a 
> syntax error? Or could it be used as an easier way to spell "class 
> C(object):"?

-0 ... instinctively, I dread the task of explaining / teaching about 
the rationale for this somewhat kludgy transitional solution [[empty 
parentheses may be written OR omitted, with large difference in 
meaning, not very related to other cases of such parentheses]], even 
though I think you're right that it would make the future transition to 
3.0 somewhat safer.

Alex

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051695.html below:

[Python-Dev] Requesting that a class be a new-style class