Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > > > >> In general, "a superclass of foo" means "a class X such that foo is a > >> sublass of X" > > > > Sure. However, this doesn't equate to the assertion that "next class > > in the MRO is the superclass", which is what I was responding to. > > > One thing not pointed out in this thread is that the chain of classes > on the MRO starting with super(A, obj) _will_ include all superclasses > of A. That is the guarantee of the MRO, and that is why super is an > appropriate name.
Yes, it does include those classes. The problem is it also includes an unknown (to the implementation of A) number of classes that are *not* superclasses of A. Thus, 'super' is a *bad* name for such a function. -- \ "There are always those who think they know what is your | `\ responsibility better than you do." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
