In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As others have pointed out, super, is designed to do something different from > what you want. See > http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.2.3/descrintro/#cooperation for > GvR's > explanation of super's intent, limitations, and a pure-python > implementation > that you might alter for your purposes. Indeed so. The documentation for super() led me to an erroneous conclusion. > Given what you assert about your inheritance graph (two independent ancestor > chains, that do not propagate super calls from their respective base > classes), > what is objectionable about: > > C.__init__(self, ...) > > D.__init__(self, ...) Well, since super() were much better labelled call_next_method, I must agree that the Class.__init__(self, ...) form is probably the best solution! Thanks for your feedback. Cheers, -M -- Michael J. Fromberger | Lecturer, Dept. of Computer Science http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sting/ | Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
