> Works for me. Each class must call super(...).__init__(). The first arg
> >>> class A(object): > ... def __init__(self): > ... print 'A.__init__()' > ... super(A, self).__init__() > ... > >>> class B(object): > ... def __init__(self): > ... print 'B.__init__()' > ... super(B, self).__init__() > ... > >>> class C(A, B): > ... def __init__(self): > ... print 'C.__init__()' > ... super(C, self).__init__() > ... > >>> C() > C.__init__() > A.__init__() > B.__init__() > <__main__.C object at 0x00A32BB0> Thats almost exactly what I did but with several extra MI classes to test things like diamond lattice etc. BUT I say almost because the one thing I didn't do is call super() at the highest level. 'A' and 'B' in your case. DUH! Its obvious when I look at it now but in my mind I was thinking they didn't have a superclass, but of course they do - object! Having said that I still don't like that mechanism since it makes the behaviour of the subclass depend on the implementation of the superclass. That is, if I choose to create a sub class of someone elses class then a call to super will only work if the other person has written their class with a call to super... not good. Whereas if I call the class init explicitly it works regardless of how the superclass is written. Thanks for a 'super' explanation Kent :-) Alan G _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
