Exactly what Michael said. Stopping the chain going upwards is one thing. Stopping it going sideways is another.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > On 14/04/2011 16:34, P.J. Eby wrote: >> >> At 03:55 PM 4/14/2011 +0100, Michael Foord wrote: >>> >>> Ricardo isn't suggesting that Python should always call super for you, >>> but when you *start* the chain by calling super then Python could ensure >>> that all the methods are called for you. If an individual method doesn't >>> call super then a theoretical implementation could skip the parents >>> methods (unless another child calls super). >> >> That would break classes that deliberately don't call super. I can think >> of examples in my own code that would break, especially in __init__() cases. >> >> It's perfectly sensible and useful for there to be classes that >> intentionally fail to call super(), and yet have a subclass that wants to >> use super(). So, this change would expose an internal implementation detail >> of a class to its subclasses, and make "fragile base class" problems worse. >> (i.e., where an internal change to a base class breaks a previously-working >> subclass). > > It shouldn't do. What I was suggesting is that a method not calling super > shouldn't stop a *sibling* method being called, but could still prevent the > *parent* method being called. > > Michael > > -- > http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ > > May you do good and not evil > May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others > May you share freely, never taking more than you give. > -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html > > _______________________________________________ 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