In article <51c7a087$0$29999$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:24:14 -0400, Roy Smith wrote: > > > In article <51c74373$0$29999$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>, > > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > >> What else would you call a function that does lookups on the current > >> object's superclasses? > > > > Well, mro_lookup() would have been a better choice. Super() has an > > obvious meaning, which just happens to be wrong. > > This "obvious but wrong" meaning isn't the least bit obvious to me. Care > to give me a hint? The only thing I can think of is: > > - if you are familiar with single inheritance; True. > - but unfamiliar with multiple inheritance; False. Although, I'm pretty sure that all the times I've used MI (in both Python and C++), it was of the mix-in variety. > - then you might assume that super means "return the superclass of this > class" (or possibly instance). That's exactly what I assumed. And, since you correctly surmised that that's what I would assume, I would suggest that it was pretty obvious to you too. Of course, given that assumption, it was not at all clear what it would do in a class with multiple ancestors. > I don't think that counts as "obvious". Or at least not "intuitive" :-) Obvious is in the mind of the observer. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
