On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:55:22PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I'm not proud of this, but I don't see a way around it. The > alternative would be to make it a keyword, which seemed excessive > (plus, it would be odd if super() were a keyword when self is not). > There were long discussions about various possible ways to implement > something like this, and they all had their downsides. (The PEP still > isn't fixed to describe the status quo.)
I remember some brainstorms about treating more like self. I'm not sure
if these were thought through all the way, but I remember seeing
something like:
class MyClass(Super1, Super2):
# This method requires super:
@requires_super
def __init__(self, super, **kwds):
super(**kwds)
# This method doesn't require super:
def some_method(self):
pass
I'm sure there are drawbacks, but it fits in my head. Using super in
Python 2.0 is verbose but simple. However, I'm a little scared of super
in Python 3.0. I guess I'm probably just a wimp.
--
Andrew McNabb
http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/
PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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
