On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:58:14 +1200, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > P.J. Eby wrote: > > > 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(). > > One such case is where someone is using super() in a > single-inheritance environment as a way of not having to > write the base class name explicitly into calls to base > methods. (I wouldn't recommend using super() that way > myself, but some people do.) In that situation, any failure > to call super() is almost certainly deliberate.
Why not? It seems more useful than using it for chaining, especially given the compiler hack in Python3. -- R. David Murray http://www.bitdance.com _______________________________________________ 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
