2012/5/20 Calvin Spealman <ironfro...@gmail.com>: > 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.
Well, then, back to the old way it is. -- 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/archive%40mail-archive.com
