On Jan 1, 12:32 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > import read_my_mind_and_do_what_I_want > > first. (Module expected in Python 9.7, due out in 2058.)
That's because it seems to you like some esoteric feature. To me it seems natural with OO. > "Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules." I thought about this mechanism each time I had to call a base class method. Lisp has it, out of the box. May be it's not so special... > Since you have to call the superclass yourself, there's not that much > difference between reminding people to call the superclass by hand, and > reminding them to call some decorator. Not necessarily. Once a class is declared with chains, its deriveratives don't really need the decorator (Python will know about it). And even with a decorator, what if the class has 5 methods? That's one decorator against 5 superclass calls. > Admittedly, a decorator for the most common cases would be easier to use > than super(), but I don't think it would make enough of a difference that > it is worth changing Python's object model just to make it possible. As > ... > And as others have pointed out, if you really want this desperately > enough, you can create a metaclass to handle it. > That's right. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
