On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:17:32 -0400, Peter Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bengt Richter wrote: >> BTW, there's something about referring to type(self) by its not >> always dependably bound (though usually global) name that bothers me. >> >> I wonder if the above common use of super could be implemented as a property >> of object, >> so you'd normally inherit it and be able to write >> self.super.__init__(*args, **kwargs) # (maybe spell it >> self.__super__.__init__(...) I suppose) >> >> I.e., self.__super__ would effectively return the equivalent of >> super(type(self), self) > >This doesn't work: type(self) is always the type of the instantiated >(child) class, not the type of the class at whatever level of the class >hierarchy the __init__() calls currently have reached. > D'oh, you're right, that was too easy a property definition ;-/ I still don't like having to use a global name to get access to the current lexical scope object though. But I can't think of a decent hack right now to get around all that, and I can't spend too much time ;-/ >In other words, with these definitions: > >class A(object): > def __init__(self): > super(type(self), self).__init__() # does not do what you want > >class B(A): > def __init__(self): > super(type(self), self).__init__() # works okay here > >if you do "b = B()", the first __init__ will work (i.e. B's __init__ >will find and call A.__init__), but the next one won't (i.e. A.__init__ >will now try calling A.__init__ recursively, giving you an eventual >stack overflow). > >-correcting-bengt-richter-on-such-arcana-is-always-dangerously y'rs, > Peter No danger at all, I'm grateful ;-) Regards, Bengt Richter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
