On Sun, Apr 16, 2006, Michael P. Soulier wrote: > On 17/04/06 Greg Ewing said: >> >> The other possible reason for using super() is so you don't have >> to write the name of the base class into all your inherited method >> calls. But that's a separate issue that would be better addressed by >> a different mechanism, rather than conflating the two in super(). > > Although you do have to put the current class name in the method > calls, as super() requires it as the first argument. I never > understood that. Why would I wish to use super(Bar) if I'm in class > Foo? Cannot Foo be implied here?
Remember that in its current form super() is a regular function; it cannot be implied without stack hackery. The autosuper metaclass should probably become part of the regular type metaclass in 3.0, but I think that requires a PEP -- and in keeping with Guido's recent admonishment, someone should probably try implementing it first and see what happens with the test suite. -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "LL YR VWL R BLNG T S" _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
