The fact that even experienced programmers fail to see that super(type(self),self) in Python 2 is NOT equivalent to super() in Python 3 is telling something. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Steven D'Aprano
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Duncan Booth
- Re: Python's super() considered su... Ethan Furman
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Eric Snow
- RE: Python's super() considered super! Prasad, Ramit
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Chris Angelico
- Re: Python's super() considered super! sturlamolden
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Mel
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Steven D'Aprano
- Re: Python's super() considered super! harrismh777
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Michele Simionato
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Duncan Booth
- Re: Python's super() considered super! sturlamolden
- Re: Python's super() considered super! sturlamolden
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Steven D'Aprano
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Stefan Behnel
- Re: Python's super() considered super! sturlamolden
- Re: Python's super() considered su... Thomas Rachel
- Re: Python's super() considered super! sturlamolden
- Re: Python's super() considered super! Ryan Kelly
- Re: Python's super() considered super! sturlamolden