In article <51c723b4$0$29999$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 10:15:38 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> > If you're worried about efficiency, you can also explicitly name the
> > superclass in order to call the method directly, like:
> >
> > A.__init__(self, arg)
>
> Please don't. This is false economy. The time you save will be trivial,
> the overhead of inheritance is not going to be the bottleneck in your
> code, and by ignoring super, you only accomplish one thing:
>
> - if you use your class in multiple inheritance, it will be buggy.
One thing I've never understood about Python 2.x's multiple inheritance
(mostly because I almost never use it) is how you do something like this:
class Base1(object):
def __init__(self, foo):
self.foo = foo
class Base2(object):
def __init__(self, bar):
self.bar = bar
class Derived(Base1, Base2):
def __init__(self, foo, bar):
# now what???
I need to call __init__() in both of my base classes. I don't see how
super() can do that for me. I assume I would just do:
def __init__(self, foo, bar):
Base1.__init__(self, foo)
Base2.__init__(self, bar)
am I missing something here?
For what it's worth, I never bother to inherit from object unless I know
there's something I need from new style classes. Undoubtedly, this
creates a disturbance in The Force, but such is life.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
