Re: To super or not to super (Re: Accessing parent objects)

2018-03-27 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:21:38 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote: > The idea that super() is *always* the right way to call inherited > methods in a multiple inheritance environment seems to have been raised > by some people to the level of religous dogma. "Always"? Well, you could always avoid super()

Re: To super or not to super (Re: Accessing parent objects)

2018-03-27 Thread Ian Kelly
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Gregory Ewing > wrote: >> The trouble is, those conditions don't always hold. >> Often when overriding a method, you want to do something >> *instead* of what

Re: To super or not to super (Re: Accessing parent objects)

2018-03-27 Thread Ian Kelly
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Gregory Ewing wrote: > The idea that super() is *always* the right way to call > inherited methods in a multiple inheritance environment > seems to have been raised by some people to the level > of religous dogma. > > I don't buy it.

Re: To super or not to super (Re: Accessing parent objects)

2018-03-27 Thread Antoon Pardon
On 27-03-18 08:21, Gregory Ewing wrote: > The idea that super() is *always* the right way to call > inherited methods in a multiple inheritance environment > seems to have been raised by some people to the level > of religous dogma. > > I don't buy it. In order for it to work, the following > two

To super or not to super (Re: Accessing parent objects)

2018-03-27 Thread Gregory Ewing
The idea that super() is *always* the right way to call inherited methods in a multiple inheritance environment seems to have been raised by some people to the level of religous dogma. I don't buy it. In order for it to work, the following two conditions must hold: 1) All the methods involved