On 4/29/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/29/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The PEP defines the proposal to enhance the super builtin to work implicitly > > upon the class within which it is used and upon the instance the current > > function was called on. The premise of the new super usage suggested is as > > follows: > > > > super.foo(1, 2) > > > > to replace the old: > > > > super(Foo, self).foo(1, 2) > > Now that I think about it, your proposal seems to address only one of > super()'s three forms > (http://docs.python.org/lib/built-in-funcs.html#l2h-72): > > 1. super(type) > 2. super(type, instance) > 3. super(type, type) > > If your intention is to remove the first and third forms from the > language, please justify their removal in your PEP, including your > proposed work-around for their use-cases.
The first is not removed, but actually utilized by the proposal itself. That is what the __super__ attributes are: super objects associated only with a type, but no instance. As for the third form, I wasn't even aware of it, I thought. I didn't consider the cases like how super is used in __new__ methods, but I tested it with the reference implementation, and it works just fine. If there are any cases I'm missing, there is no reason not to support it. -- Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting! http://ironfroggy-code.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
