Peter Hansen, Quarta 29 Dezembro 2004 01:04, wrote: > Maybe there's no such pronouncement, but unless there is a > clear statement somewhere (and I believe I've missed it, if > there is) that reads "one should *always* call __init__ on the > superclass even if one is just subclassing object and not > dealing with multiple inheritance situations", then I would > submit that the majority of Python code written using new-style > classes would be broken should what you suggest above ever > actually happen... starting with much of the code in the > standard library (based on a quick glance at those modules > whose contents match the re pattern "class .*(object):" .
Things are kind weird at this point, since there are too many things to think about and to make a decision on what should be done and what is recommended to be done... Quoting from http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0008.html: """ (...) Designing for inheritance (...) Also decide whether your attributes should be private or not. The difference between private and non-public is that the former will never be useful for a derived class, while the latter might be. Yes, you should design your classes with inheritence in mind! (...) """ So, I don't really know which is correct: to always call the constructor of the parent class or just do that when it is needed by design... I think that based on the above quotation from PEP-0008 code in the standard library should be calling the parent class constructor. But then, I'm one of the people who never do that :-) -- Godoy. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
