On 4/29/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/29/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What if the instance isn't called "self"? PEP 3099 states that "self > > will not become implicit"; it's talking about method signatures, but I > > think that dictum applies equally well in this case. > > I don't use the name self. I use whatever the first argument name is, > found by this line of python code: > > instance_name = calling_frame.f_code.co_varnames[0]
So I can't use super with anything but the method's invocant? That seems arbitrary. > > Also, it's my understanding that not all Python implementations have > > an easy analogue to CPython's frames; have you given any thought to > > whether and how PyPy, IronPython, Jython, etc, will implement this? > > I'll bring this up for input from PyPy and IronPython people, but I > don't know any Jython people. Are we yet letting the alternative > implementations influence so strongly what we do in CPython? I'm not > saying "screw them", just pointing out that there is always a way to > implement anything, and if its some trouble for them, well, 2.6 or 3.0 > targetting is far down the road for any of them yet. It's a smell test: if a given proposal is unduly difficult for anything but CPython to implement, it's probably a bad idea. The language shouldn't go down the Perl 5 road, where python (the C interpreter) becomes the only thing that can implement Python (the language). Collin Winter _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com