On 14/04/2011 16:34, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 03:55 PM 4/14/2011 +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
Ricardo isn't suggesting that Python should always call super for
you, but when you *start* the chain by calling super then Python
could ensure that all the methods are called for you. If an
individual method doesn't call super then a theoretical
implementation could skip the parents
methods (unless another child calls super).
That would break classes that deliberately don't call super. I can
think of examples in my own code that would break, especially in
__init__() cases.
It's perfectly sensible and useful for there to be classes that
intentionally fail to call super(), and yet have a subclass that wants
to use super(). So, this change would expose an internal
implementation detail of a class to its subclasses, and make "fragile
base class" problems worse. (i.e., where an internal change to a base
class breaks a previously-working subclass).
It shouldn't do. What I was suggesting is that a method not calling
super shouldn't stop a *sibling* method being called, but could still
prevent the *parent* method being called.
Michael
--
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
-- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
_______________________________________________
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
