Bengt Richter wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:54:31 -0700, Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>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)
Yes, of course (a silly cut-o / paste-o).
> 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)
The problem with this is:
class A(object):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
print 'Set A(*%r, **%r)' % (args, kwargs)
class B(A):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
print 'Set B(*%r, **%r)' % (args, kwargs)
super(B, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
class C(B):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
print 'Set C(*%r, **%r)' % (args, kwargs)
super(C, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
class D(A):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
print 'Set D(*%r, **%r)' % (args, kwargs)
super(type(self), self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
class E(D):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
print 'Set E(*%r, **%r)' % (args, kwargs)
super(type(self), self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
You'll see the problem when you attempt to create an instance of E.
All of the others work just fine.
--Scott David Daniels
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
