In article <51c74373$0$29999$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:04:35 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano > > <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 11:18:41 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> > >>> Incidentally, although super() is useful, it's not perfect, and this > >>> is one of my grievances with it: that a user can, based upon the name, > >>> draw an inaccurate assumption about what it does without reading or > >>> fully understanding the documentation on it, which might then result > >>> in misusing it. > >> > >> Wait a second... are you saying that the Python developers created an > >> advanced language feature relating to multiple inheritance, one of the > >> most complex OOP concepts around, so difficult that most other > >> languages simply prohibit it completely, and it wasn't instantly and > >> correctly intuited by every single programmer based only on the name? > >> Oh my stars, somebody call Ranting Rick, he needs to write a PyWart > >> post to expose this scandal!!! > > > > Mostly I'm saying that super() is badly named. > > > What else would you call a function that does lookups on the current > object's superclasses? Well, mro_lookup() would have been a better choice. Super() has an obvious meaning, which just happens to be wrong. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list