Géry <gery.o...@gmail.com> added the comment: By the way:
> I don't think we need two ways to do it. So do you think we could drop the support for single-argument super? Michele said in his article: > There is a single use case for the single argument syntax of super that I am > aware of, but I think it gives more troubles than advantages. The use case is > the implementation of autosuper made by Guido on his essay about new-style > classes. > If it was me, I would just remove the single argument syntax of super, making > it illegal. But this would probably break someone code, so I don't think it > will ever happen in Python 2.X. I did ask on the Python 3000 mailing list > about removing unbound super object (the title of the thread was let's get > rid of unbound super) and this was Guido's reply: >> Thanks for proposing this -- I've been scratching my head wondering what the >> use of unbound super() would be. :-) I'm fine with killing it -- perhaps >> someone can do a bit of research to try and find out if there are any >> real-life uses (apart from various auto-super clones)? --- Guido van Rossum > Unfortunaly as of now unbound super objects are still around in Python 3.0, > but you should consider them morally deprecated. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue44090> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
