Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Try to interpret it as:
My point exactly. If a function is named 'super' and operates on classes, it's a pretty strong implication that it's about superclasses. Any explanation that begins "Try to interpret it as" and then goes on to explain that it's to do with MRO, *not* superclasses, is evidence that the function is *badly named*. I'm not interested in documenting this function, because as I said I don't see why I would want to use it. My objection is that, as currently named, it's an *obstacle* when a programmer goes looking for a way to get a superclass. Possibly the name 'next_in_mro', while ugly, would at least match the actual behaviour of this function. At least then the next person who goes looking for "how do I get the superclass of A?" won't be misled into trying to use *the wrong function for that purpose*. -- \ "If you can't annoy somebody there is little point in writing." | `\ -- Kingsley Amis | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
