On 5/25/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We could make the class in question a fourth attribute of the (poorly > named) "bound method" object, e.g. im_class_for_super (im_super would > be confusing IMO).
In the past, you have referred to this as the static class. I think it has other uses as well, such as a class-wide registry (whose location shouldn't be redirected without overriding the whole method). I realize this is the rejected __this_class__ proposal, but I can't help feeling that if we're going to create the magic attribute anyhow, it makes sense to have it be generally usable, instead of only as a token to create a super. > In my proposal the 'super' variable contains whatever > __super__(<class>, <inst>) returned, rather than <class> which you > seem to be proposing here. That's fine, but the <class> still has to be stored with the method to generate that super -- so why not expose it too? -jJ _______________________________________________ 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
