Sorry, I read your message too fast and responded to the wrong point :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am I mistaken in thinking that "superclass of foo" is equivalent > > to "parent class of foo"? If so, I'd lay heavy odds that I'm not > > alone in that thinking. > > In general, "a superclass of foo" means "a class X such that foo is a > sublass of X" Read "ancestor" where I wrote "parent", then. It seems that (with that substitution) my thinking is correct. Yes? Why, then, does super() traverse the MRO of class 'A', instead of the ancestors of class 'A'? And, since that's what it does, is it not misnamed, since "next in the MRO" is *not* the same thing as "superclass"? -- \ "Remember: every member of your 'target audience' also owns a | `\ broadcasting station. These 'targets' can shoot back." -- | _o__) Michael Rathbun to advertisers, news.admin.net-abuse.email | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
