I'm on the fence about dropping __var (some people back in the days *begged* for it, and it had nothing to do with super; I wonder what they think now).
But I'm all for adding syntactic sugar to Py3k. Can someone please draft a proto-PEP? I think the compiler could treat super as a reserved word and turn super.foo(args) into __super__(<thisclass>, self).foo(args). Or something. Please be sure you understand the issues (e.g. you can't rely on self.__class__). It would be great if it worked inside class methods too. For static methods it don't see how it ca work since there's no instance; or perhaps it should just use the static hierarchy? Try not to go overboard; KISS etc. --Guido On 9/24/06, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Christian Tanzer wrote: > > > I don't use __ for `private`, I use it for making cooperative super > > calls (and `__super` occurs 1397 in my sandbox). > > I think you might be confusing the symptom for the disease. To me, your mail > means that Py3k should grow some syntactic sugar for super calls. I guess if > that happens, you won't be missing __. > > Giovanni Bajo > > _______________________________________________ > 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/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
