On 4/29/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/29/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/29/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As long as you can be explicit, should the shortcut be a full > > > shortcut? That is, > > > > > > def f(self, a, b=c, *args, **kwargs): > > > super() # passes the exact arglist that f got > > > > I sure wish my previous complaints didn't hinder this, because I > > really love the idea of being able to this, which would really > > encourage more compatible method signatures, so you can use the > > shortcut! I'm desperate for a solution that satisfies all the sides of > > the equation. > > I hate this. super() calls would be completely different from other > function calls in that what appears to be an empty argument list is > actually a filled-out argument list. > > Please stick to the original topic of figuring out how to remove the > class name from super calls, rather than inventing new magical, > spooky-action-at-a-distance toys.
Amen, brother! -- --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
