[cc:-python-dev] On 4/29/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/29/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As long as you can be explicit, should the shortcut be a full > > shortcut? That is, > > > > def f(self, a, b=c, *args, **kwargs): > > super() # passes the exact arglist that f got > > I sure wish my previous complaints didn't hinder this, because I > really love the idea of being able to this, which would really > encourage more compatible method signatures, so you can use the > shortcut! I'm desperate for a solution that satisfies all the sides of > the equation.
I hate this. super() calls would be completely different from other function calls in that what appears to be an empty argument list is actually a filled-out argument list. Please stick to the original topic of figuring out how to remove the class name from super calls, rather than inventing new magical, spooky-action-at-a-distance toys. Collin Winter _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
