Up to Python 2.1, old-style classes were the only flavour available to the user.
The concept of (old-style) class is unrelated to the concept of type:
if x
is an instance of an old-style class, then x.__class__
designates the class of x
, but type(x)
is always <type
'instance'>
.
This reflects the fact that all old-style instances, independently of
their class, are implemented with a single built-in type, called
instance.
New-style classes were introduced in Python 2.2 to unify the concepts of class and type.
A new-style class is simply a user-defined type, no more, no less.
If x is an instance of a new-style class, then type(x)
is typically
the same as x.__class__
(although this is not guaranteed – a
new-style class instance is permitted to override the value returned
for x.__class__
).
The major motivation for introducing new-style classes is to provide a unified object model with a full meta-model.
It also has a number of immediate benefits, like the ability to
subclass most built-in types, or the introduction of "descriptors",
which enable computed properties.
For compatibility reasons, classes are still old-style by default.
New-style classes are created by specifying another new-style class
(i.e. a type) as a parent class, or the "top-level type" object if no
other parent is needed.
The behaviour of new-style classes differs from that of old-style
classes in a number of important details in addition to what type
returns.
Some of these changes are fundamental to the new object model, like
the way special methods are invoked. Others are "fixes" that could not
be implemented before for compatibility concerns, like the method
resolution order in case of multiple inheritance.
Python 3 only has new-style classes.
No matter if you subclass from object
or not, classes are new-style
in Python 3.
Best Answer
Why do you want something to be part of the display list? You say: It will, however, contain things to be displayed.
If you mean you want to compose displayable objects, e.g. doing something like:
Then that is totally acceptable. If you want to create a class called ImageContainer that manages the adding and removal of images and use it instead of Sprite - that too is totally acceptable. I wouldn't call it a temptation but I wouldn't do it unless you were adding something worthwhile to the above code.
Not particularly. The size of your class will generally be something close to sizeof(Sprite) + sizeof(instanceVariables[]) where instanceVariables[] are the new variables you declare in your class. I wouldn't worry about it. Composition is more costly than inheritance; that is needlessly using too many containers. In the general case I never worry about it but if I were to create 5000 particles in a particle system I'd try and keep each particle as simple as possible.