On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Fetchinson < fetchin...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Consider whether you really need to use super(). > >>>>>>> http://fuhm.net/super-harmful/ > >>>> > >>>> Because throwing around that link carries about the same amount of > >>>> information as "perl is better than python", "my IDE is better than > >>>> yours", "vim rulez!", "emacs is cooler than vim", etc, etc. > >>> > >>> Not at all. It contains accurate and valuable information that isn't > >>> available elsewhere. > >> > >> But does not contain other valuable information which would demystify > >> super. If only this source is shown to a person who wants to learn the > >> proper usage of super, the impression he/she gets will be distorted. > > > > Why so? At the end there is a "best practices" recipe that pretty much > > summarizes the proper usage of super, and AFAIK it's the right way to use > > it. Don't you agree with any of the conclusions? > > > >> Example: 1. somebody asks about threading 2. reply comes: there is a > >> GIL! you can't do real threading. Now this reply might be technically > >> more-or-less correct, it is misleading and does not help the poster. > >> An informed discussion of the various solutions that does not involve > >> a rant about the GIL would be very useful though. > > > > As I said, the article presents a "recipe" for super() usage, and I'd > > consider it very helpful. It's far from just saying "super s*cks!", or > > "the GIL s*cks!" or something like that. > > > >> You might want to start with > >> > >> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=236275 > > > > ...which, although the author says it was written a long time ago, was > not > > published until less than six months ago, and has very low visibility. > > > >> You are right, it's not in the documentation. But if somebody asks on > >> c.l.p the appropriate answer, I think, is to point to information such > >> as the one above, and not the misleading "harmful" essay. > > > > According to Google, nobody has menctioned the "harmful" essay in this > > group since April 2008 [1], months before Simionato's article were > > available... So this is the *first* time the reference to the former > essay > > could have been replaced by M.S.' one... don't be so strict! > > > > Anyway, the right thing to do, IMHO, is to publish correct and accurate > > documentation in the main Python site. Not everybody knows about this > > group existence, nor has the time/experience/interest on subscribe here, > > post a question and wait for an answer. I've seen some posts in > python-dev > > saying something like "this is confusing, we should evangelize people on > > c.l.p. on the right way to do it" and I completely disagree; the right > > place for such things is the product documentation, or -to a much lesser > > degree because it's online only- some article collection linked from the > > main site (like the "Other resources" left bar, already present). > > > >>>> Honestly, I don't understand how this thing got so much out of > >>>> control. If anyone starts an intelligent question or remark about > >>>> super, this essay is thrown in no matter what. Anyone can explain why? > >>> > >>> Because for a very loooooong time (seven years, 2001-2008) super was > >>> almost undocumented. The Library Reference -before release 2.6- only > >>> had a short paragraph, the [...] > >> > >> You are right, the documentation needs some work in this regard. But > >> again, just because some sources are not in the documentation doesn't > >> mean that the most opinionated essay is the best source. A little > >> search turns up much more useful ones. > > > > (not according to Google [2]: I get the "harmful" article in the top, the > > thread in python-dev, a couple threads in c.l.p including posts by M.S., > > his article in artima, and nothing more relevant than "Monty Python Super > > Star" up to the 3rd page) > > > > *Now* that *I* am aware of the recent article series by M.S., the next > > time someone asks *me* about super(), probably I'll refer her to both > M.S. > > and J.K.'s articles. Last time I checked (perhaps one or two years ago), > > the "harmful" article was almost the only relevant source of info about > > super(). > > > > [1] > > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/search?q=super+harmful&start=0&scoring=d& > > [2] http://www.google.com/search?q=python+super > > Okay, I think we converged to a common denominator. I agree with you > that the documentation needs additions about super and I also agree > with you that referring to both MS and JK articles is appropriate when > a question about super comes up. > > It's good to have a discussion when views actually converge and not > diverge at the end :) Wait, that's not supposed to happen. This is Usenet after all. Quick, someone comment on the GIL! -- > Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list