On 03/07/2023 19:39, Chris Angelico via Python-list wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 03:39, Peter Slížik via Python-list >> The legacy code I'm working with uses a classic diamond inheritance.
> What happens when Top is initialized twice? This seems like a problem > waiting to happen, and when you moved to using super(), you more than > likely simplified things and fixed things. Slightly off topic but I wonder how many real world problems people have experienced having the top of a diamond initialized twice? The reason I ask is that I ran a maintenance team for about 5 years (early 1990s) working on various OOP projects using MI; in Lisp Flavors, C++(*) and a homebrew variant of C that supported MI. In that time I don't recall ever having problems with top objects being initialized twice (apart from redundant execution of code of course). In most cases the top object was so abstract that its init()/constructor was only doing generic type stuff or opening database sessions/networks etc which got lost and tidied up by garbage collectors. So I'm curious about how big this "big problem with MI" is in practice. I'm sure there are scenarios where it has bitten folks but it never (or very rarely) occurred in our projects. (Of course, being maintenance programmers, the problems may have been ironed out before the code ever reached us! But that wasn't usually the case...) (*) C++ is the odd one out because it doesn't have GC, but then neither does it have an Object superclass so very often MI in C++ does not involve creating diamonds! And especially if the MI style is mixin based. -- Alan G Author of the Learn to Program web site http://www.alan-g.me.uk/ http://www.amazon.com/author/alan_gauld Follow my photo-blog on Flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alangauldphotos -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
