On Wed, Apr 19, 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Regarding the syntax, IMO *if* we use this we should do it so that you > can write > > super.foobar(args) > > where currently you'd write > > super(ClassName, self).foobar(args) > > 'super' could be a new keyword. In 3.0 we could just make the keyword > expand to a magic built-in function with the appropriate arguments > (the magic cell and the first function argument). We could probably > introduce this in 2.6 if the super object, when called, would return > itself; then IMO no __future__ statement would be required since > existing code using super would continue to work.
-1 on keyword in 2.x -- my company already has our own super() function that does call-stack crawling and works with classic classes (since we don't dare convert to new-style classes). We can't be the only ones. I shan't argue too forcefully, though; it wouldn't be that hard to rename it. -- 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
