"Bengt Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I wonder if the above common use of super could be implemented as a
> property of object,
> so you'd normally inherit it and be able to write
> self.super.__init__(*args, **kwargs) # (maybe spell it
> self.__super__.__init__(...) I suppose)
>
> I.e., self.__super__ would effectively return the equivalent of
> super(type(self), self)
Well, let's look at it. If I implemented a super() method on
object (and I didn't shadow it anywhere) what I'd have when
it was invoked is something like
def super(self):
stuff
>From there one could get the current instance's class, so
we've got all the ingredients of the regular super(class, instance)
built-in function. What it wouldn't have is the ability to invoke it
on an arbitrary class and instance.
The big issue seems to be the direction Guido wants to take
Python - he seems to not want to put methods on the
object type. I have to say that I don't understand his reasoning,
if that is indeed his position.
John Roth
>
> Regards,
> Bengt Richter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
