On 13 Feb, 12:46, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, what problems ocurring with > > class A: pass > class B: pass > class C(A, B): pass > > could be avoided by writing > > class A: pass > class B(A): pass > class C(B): pass > > instead? Classes have to be designed for subclassing, so essentially you get > two interfaces, one for subclasses and one for client code instead of just > the latter. A more relevant mantra governing inheritance is "Flat is better > than nested".
I am truly getting lost. Are you saying that doing A-->B(A)--C(B) is better than C(A,B)? And isn't the former thing nested? Or are you saying that C(A,B) is better than A,B(A),C(B)? And in both cases:why? And why "classes have to be designed for subclassing"? I often do classes that are not thought to be subclassed. > If you use attributes starting with two underscores inside a method, Python > transparently prepends them with the class name. This allows to you to use > the same variable name in two base classes and reduces coupling: Wow, I didn't know it. Thanks a lot. > But if two classes with the same name use the "private" variable, the > mechanism fails: Of course.I'll remember it. m. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
