> That should not happen! Basic contract is: same name = same meaning. Same meaning yes, but that doesn't mean that I can't/shouldn't reuse code that address a part of the problem.
> Having two methods with the name that both need two be used on the same > object is clearly a design flaw. What do you think? It think that it depends, as you write yourself if I have a method that does something that needs/should be done I think it's perfectly OK to do it (in fact that it should be done). > The only case is when the parent method performs a part of what child class > methods have to do. E.g a common case for __init__: Exacly, this is the prime example (and I can't come up with another right now without inventing some convoluted example that would be really silly) > class OneChild(Parent): > def __init__(self,arg0,arg1): > Parent.__init__(self,arg0) > self.arg1 = arg1 So this is the preferred way? Not super(OneChild, self).__init__ ? -- The Green Tea Leaf [email protected] thegreentealeaf.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
