On Sep 19, 12:36 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno. [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The next class in the MRO *is* a superclass of the *instance*. Else it > wouldn't be in the MRO !-) Bruno, there is no such a thing as a superclass in a multiple inheritance world, and it is a very bad idea to continue to use that terminology. I was convinced of that by Bjorn Pettersen in a thread on comp.lang.python in May 2003 and you may Google for it. You may find there convincing arguments against the superclass concept, some of which I report in http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~micheles/python/super.html > Well, I understand that you disagree with both the documention and the > name of super. As far as I'm concerned, the mere fact that this > discussion happens is probably a sign that there's something to be fixed > here - at least wrt documentation, possibly wrt/ naming. But the > *feature* by itself is certainly something we do want to keep, whatever > some may argue. Well, I am personally *against* multiple inheritance (i.e. IMO it gives more troubles than advantages) > > The goal is to call the correct "next" method according to MRO. Indeed, > it could have been name "call_next_method". Right. Michele Simionato -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
