Just for everyone reading this, I'm writing this one only for Chris Angelico. As much as some others here have been heating up during the discussion, which is understandable, i believe most of you were willing / able to provide a fair discussion, and still are, which shows maturity, and is something i respect. This is something i believe you, Chris Angelico, are not capable of.
Chris Angelico writes: > malmiteria writes: > > super(A, self) does not proxy to A, but to the first *after* A in MRO order. > When you call super(A, self), you are expecting to call A's method. At this point this is cognitive dissonance. Are you not willing / able to understand what i am saying to you? I do not expect super(A, self) to call A's method. I very much know it doesn't. As i am *very explicitely* telling you in those quotes What i am saying is that *if* super(A, self) *were* to call A's method, that would be a simpler API. If you understand that this is my proposal, and not my understanding of today's super, then for the love of god, address my proposal. Read that again, but slowly. Read it again. Once more. Do you still believe i think super(A, self) calls A's method? Whatever your answer here, read that again. Again. I do not believe super(A, self) calls A's method. Read that again. Are you starting to understand? I do not believe super(A, self) calls A's method. I am very much aware of super's features. Arguably more so than what you've proven to understand about this feature. You do not seem to understand the current links between super and MRO As much as you do not seem able to understand the distinction between super proxying feature, and super MRO based targeting feature, as you very obviously seem to confuse any argument made on super's proxy feature as argument made about super MRO reliance feature. Even in cases where i *explicitely* provide alternative for MRO reliance. You have not been able to address any proposal i made for the past few answers, and it's time you snap out of it. Your assumption about me are flawed. Your understanding of python super and MRO is limited. The API i propose are supposed to be the topic of this discussion, our mutual understanding of super and MRO are irrelevant. (I know you'll get mad at that) Is the API i propose better than today's API? I've yet to see anyone address this question. I think the only comment i got on that was "i'll grant your API is better in that case" Are the changes i propose allowing for a smoother learning curve, for everyone? I've yet to see anyone address this question Are there cases of feature loss? You've mentionned a few, I've addressed all of them, and then some. As far as i can tell, you've completely refused to even address these questions. It's about time you actually try to have a conversation with me here. You seem stuck in the mindset of olds, that can't believe youngs people would have it any other ways. Why do you care so much about today's python most confusing feature that you can't even begin to imagine a world without it? (This is not rethorical, I actually wanna know) How can such a mundane discussion be so painful to you? Honestly, don't hurt yourself man. > And, yes, I have been guilty of posting untested and buggy code > blocks. But you'd be fully justified in calling me out on that one. You're not asking for double standard, and that's something i actually respect about you, this is not ironical. Hopefully you'll understand that i'm here holding you to the treatment you've been holding me for some time now, in the sake of this value we share. I genuinly want a discussion here. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/C2CZCEYTEIENXB3CRDIKKZF6FSN7SV55/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
