On 05/07/2012 03:11 PM, Joel Goldstick wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Dave Angel <d...@davea.name> wrote: >> On 05/07/2012 02:24 PM, xancorreu wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have this script: >>> >>> from types import * >>> >> Bad idea. Once you do that, you can silently overwrite globals in your >> own module with stuff that the current version of types happens to have >> in it. Besides, it then becomes very hard to read your program and >> figure out which names you really did want to import. >> >> If you're just getting one or two names, such as in your case, better >> just do >> import types >> >>> class Tag: > > can a class be defined this way in python 3.x? I thought it needs a > parent class as a parameter? >>>
That's legal in 3.x The difference between 2.x and 3.x is that if you omit the base class in 2.x, it generates an old-style class, while in 3.x it always uses new-style classes. -- DaveA _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
