On Sep 19, 3:22 pm, Sion Arrowsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If a function is named 'super' and operates on > >classes, it's a pretty strong implication that it's about > >superclasses. > > But it doesn't (under normal circumstances) operate on classes. > It operates on an *instance*. And what you get back is a (proxy > to) a superclass/ancestor of the *instance*. > > (And in the super(A, B) case, you get a superclass/ancestor of > *B*. As has just been said somewhere very near here, what is > misleading is the prominence of A, which isn't really the most > important class involved.) >
Happily A (and B too) will become invisible in Python 3000. Michele Simionato -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list