:-) 2011/4/14 Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:15:10 -0500 > Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > > 2011/4/14 Ricardo Kirkner <ricardokirk...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I recently stumbled upon an issue with a class in the mro chain not > > > calling super, therefore breaking the chain (ie, further base classes > > > along the chain didn't get called). > > > I understand it is currently a requirement that all classes that are > > > part of the mro chain behave and always call super. My question is, > > > shouldn't/wouldn't it be better, > > > if python took ownership of that part, and ensured all classes get > > > called, even if some class misbehaved? > > > > > > For example, if using a stack-like structure, pushing super calls and > > > popping until the stack was empty, couldn't this restriction be > > > removed? > > > > No. See line 2 of the Zen of Python. > > You could have quoted it explicitly :) > FWIW, line 2 is: > Explicit is better than implicit. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/g.rodola%40gmail.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
