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.
It won't normally be for an attribute. Typically, it would look like:
super(self).foo(arg1, arg2)
or even
super(self).foo()
I'm not sure that is much improvement over explicitly showing the
class, though it is certainly an improvement over using the
(rebindable) class name.
> As a bonus, super() and super(cls) have obvious semantics.
What would they be? Are you assuming that the two-argument forms
would go away? Or that the *first* positional argument could be
defaulted to __this_class__, but the second would be mandatory?
-jJ
_______________________________________________
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
