>>>>>>> Consider whether you really need to use super(). >>>>>>> http://fuhm.net/super-harmful/ >>>> >>>> Because throwing around that link carries about the same amount of >>>> information as "perl is better than python", "my IDE is better than >>>> yours", "vim rulez!", "emacs is cooler than vim", etc, etc. >>> >>> Not at all. It contains accurate and valuable information that isn't >>> available elsewhere. >> >> But does not contain other valuable information which would demystify >> super. If only this source is shown to a person who wants to learn the >> proper usage of super, the impression he/she gets will be distorted. > > Why so? At the end there is a "best practices" recipe that pretty much > summarizes the proper usage of super, and AFAIK it's the right way to use > it. Don't you agree with any of the conclusions? > >> Example: 1. somebody asks about threading 2. reply comes: there is a >> GIL! you can't do real threading. Now this reply might be technically >> more-or-less correct, it is misleading and does not help the poster. >> An informed discussion of the various solutions that does not involve >> a rant about the GIL would be very useful though. > > As I said, the article presents a "recipe" for super() usage, and I'd > consider it very helpful. It's far from just saying "super s*cks!", or > "the GIL s*cks!" or something like that. > >> You might want to start with >> >> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=236275 > > ...which, although the author says it was written a long time ago, was not > published until less than six months ago, and has very low visibility. > >> You are right, it's not in the documentation. But if somebody asks on >> c.l.p the appropriate answer, I think, is to point to information such >> as the one above, and not the misleading "harmful" essay. > > According to Google, nobody has menctioned the "harmful" essay in this > group since April 2008 [1], months before Simionato's article were > available... So this is the *first* time the reference to the former essay > could have been replaced by M.S.' one... don't be so strict! > > Anyway, the right thing to do, IMHO, is to publish correct and accurate > documentation in the main Python site. Not everybody knows about this > group existence, nor has the time/experience/interest on subscribe here, > post a question and wait for an answer. I've seen some posts in python-dev > saying something like "this is confusing, we should evangelize people on > c.l.p. on the right way to do it" and I completely disagree; the right > place for such things is the product documentation, or -to a much lesser > degree because it's online only- some article collection linked from the > main site (like the "Other resources" left bar, already present). > >>>> Honestly, I don't understand how this thing got so much out of >>>> control. If anyone starts an intelligent question or remark about >>>> super, this essay is thrown in no matter what. Anyone can explain why? >>> >>> Because for a very loooooong time (seven years, 2001-2008) super was >>> almost undocumented. The Library Reference -before release 2.6- only >>> had a short paragraph, the [...] >> >> You are right, the documentation needs some work in this regard. But >> again, just because some sources are not in the documentation doesn't >> mean that the most opinionated essay is the best source. A little >> search turns up much more useful ones. > > (not according to Google [2]: I get the "harmful" article in the top, the > thread in python-dev, a couple threads in c.l.p including posts by M.S., > his article in artima, and nothing more relevant than "Monty Python Super > Star" up to the 3rd page) > > *Now* that *I* am aware of the recent article series by M.S., the next > time someone asks *me* about super(), probably I'll refer her to both M.S. > and J.K.'s articles. Last time I checked (perhaps one or two years ago), > the "harmful" article was almost the only relevant source of info about > super(). > > [1] > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/search?q=super+harmful&start=0&scoring=d& > [2] http://www.google.com/search?q=python+super
Okay, I think we converged to a common denominator. I agree with you that the documentation needs additions about super and I also agree with you that referring to both MS and JK articles is appropriate when a question about super comes up. It's good to have a discussion when views actually converge and not diverge at the end :) Cheers, Daniel -- Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list