On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:54:31 -0700, Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Sion Arrowsmith wrote:
>> ... And if you were to do so, surely:
>> class foo(object):
>> def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
>> super(foo, self).__init__(self)
>>
>> would be the preferred way to go?
>>
>Or, perhaps:
> class foo(object):
> def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
> super(foo, self).__init__(self, *args, **kwargs)
> ...
>
Doesn't super(foo, self).__init__ return a bound method, so you don't
need to pass self again? I.e.,
super(foo, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
BTW, there's something about referring to type(self) by its not
always dependably bound (though usually global) name that bothers me.
I wonder if the above common use of super could be implemented as a property of
object,
so you'd normally inherit it and be able to write
self.super.__init__(*args, **kwargs) # (maybe spell it
self.__super__.__init__(...) I suppose)
I.e., self.__super__ would effectively return the equivalent of
super(type(self), self)
(I think Michele Simionato may have posted some idea like this early on that
I didn't really follow, but maybe my subconscious snagged and garbled ;-)
Regards,
Bengt Richter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
