On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > 2012/5/20 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com>: >> PEP 3135 defines the new zero-argument form of super() as implicitly >> equivalent to super(__class__, <first argument>), and up until 3.2 has >> behaved accordingly: if you accessed __class__ from inside a method, >> you would receive a reference to the lexically containing class. > > I don't understand why PEP 3135 cares how it's implemented. It's silly > enough that you can get the class by "using" super (even just > referencing the name). Thus that you can get __class__ reeks of more > an implementation detail than a feature to me.
It made sense at the time to discuss the issues together. It was often wanted to reference the "current class" and super was simply the most common reason for this and, as was the point of the PEP in the first place, given an even more direct shortcut. I never would have considered __class__ a simple implementation detail. > -- > Regards, > Benjamin > _______________________________________________ > 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/ironfroggy%40gmail.com -- Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting! http://techblog.ironfroggy.com/ Follow me if you're into that sort of thing: http://www.twitter.com/ironfroggy _______________________________________________ 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
