Vincent Besanceney added the comment: If I understand it right, in a simple case like this:
class Foo(object): def __setattr__(self, name, value): # some logic, then... super(Foo, self).__setattr__(name, value) calling super is equivalent to calling object.__setattr__, but doesn't have any added-value since there's no cooperative multiple inheritance involved, in that case we are better off calling the parent class method directly. If Foo evolves to have multiple ancestors, object has a __setattr__ method and that object is always the last class in the MRO chain, so any sequence of calls to super(..).__setattr__ is guaranteed to end with a call to object.__setattr__ method (assuming ancestors __setattr__ method, if any, calls super as well), and that may be what we want, i.e. to also benefit from an ancestor __setattr__ method. Hmm, this last point may be too specific if not out of scope in regards to the documentation. Falling back to the original need, from the documentation "If __setattr__() wants to assign to an instance attribute...", so as you said, "calling object.__setattr__ gives a known, guaranteed behavior". ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue21814> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com