On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Ricardo Kirkner <ricardokirk...@gmail.com> wrote: > I recently stumbled upon an issue with a class in the mro chain not > calling super, therefore breaking the chain (ie, further base classes > along the chain didn't get called). > I understand it is currently a requirement that all classes that are > part of the mro chain behave and always call super. My question is, > shouldn't/wouldn't it be better, > if python took ownership of that part, and ensured all classes get > called, even if some class misbehaved?
I get annoyed by this issue as well, in various forms. It seems like such a discussion would have been resolved by now in the multitude of OOP languages, but I have to say it is quite strange to me that there is no distinction made between IS-A relationship and HAS-A relationships with regard to the issue of Inheritence. Python, confusingly makes no syntactic distinction, and its semantic distinction (through MRO and programmer conventions) seems quite suboptimal and "special-cased". --No fault of anyone's, perhaps it is indeed an unresolved issue within Computer Science. It should be clear that IS-A inheritance is really trying to say (or should be) that the following set/class (of methods and attributes) is a *super-set* of its "parent" (--See how the OO lexicon is already confused and mixing metaphors?). In this case, manually calling super() is not only completely redundant but adds various confusions. With regard to inheritence, I too would like to see automatic calls to super classes in every case were there is a complete sClearly there is utility in the notion of a set-theoretic containment DISCARDING:: the points are moot and need finer granularity that only the pangaia model can fix. _______________________________________________ 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
