On 4/23/07, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/23/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But I can't say I particularly like this idea, compared to "super.foo" or > > even "super(self).foo". In fact, the latter invocation doesn't even > > require a keyword -- it just means the compiler needs to include a cell > > variable for the current class whenever it thinks you might be using > > super(). > > +1 on super(self).foo. It's SomeLongClassName we want to get rid of, not > self. > As a bonus, super() and super(cls) have obvious semantics.
At least +0 from me too. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
