Michele Simionato a écrit : > On Sep 19, 12:36 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno. > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The next class in the MRO *is* a superclass of the *instance*. Else it >> wouldn't be in the MRO !-) > > Bruno, there is no such a thing as a superclass in a multiple > inheritance
May I disagree ? Of course, with MI, there's no such thing as "the" superclass, but there are still superclasses - the classes listed in the MRO. At least according to a commonly agreed definition of "superclass"... (snip) >> Well, I understand that you disagree with both the documention and the >> name of super. As far as I'm concerned, the mere fact that this >> discussion happens is probably a sign that there's something to be fixed >> here - at least wrt documentation, possibly wrt/ naming. But the >> *feature* by itself is certainly something we do want to keep, whatever >> some may argue. > > Well, I am personally *against* multiple inheritance (i.e. IMO it > gives more > troubles than advantages) Given Python's type system and support for delegation, it's a fact that MI is not that necessary - FWIW, I don't remember having ever used it except in Zope2 (where it's commonly a PITA). Now I don't think there's any reason to remove from MI, since it's already there, and about as usable as it can be. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
