On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, and here we see the weakness in the object architecture that has > evolved in the past decade (not just in Python, note). It hasn't > really ironed out what end is what. Here's a proposal: the highest, > most "parental", most general object should be in charge, not > subclasses calling specific parent's init methods > (Parent.__init__(myparams)), etc. -- ***THIS IS WHERE WE WENT > WRONG***. > > After the "type/class unification", python tried to make the most > generic, most useless class be the parent of *all of them*, but > there's been no use whatsoever in that. It was a good idea in the > beginning, so pure as it was, but it has not panned out in practice. > Sorry...
So instead of super(), you would have sub()? It's an interesting concept, but I don't think it changes anything. You still have to design your classes cooperatively if you expect to use them with multiple inheritance. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
