looping wrote:
> Michael J. Fromberger wrote:
> >
> > Is there a better (i.e., more elegant) way to handle the case marked
> > (**) above?
> >
>
> You have to call super in each method __init__, if you don't, the call
> chain break before the end:
>
> class A (object):
> def __init__(self):
> super(A, self).__init__()
> print "cons A"
>
> class B (object):
> def __init__(self):
> super(B, self).__init__()
> print "cons B"
>
> class C (A):
> def __init__(self):
> super(C, self).__init__()
> print "cons C"
>
> class D (B):
> def __init__(self):
> super(D, self).__init__()
> print "cons D"
>
> class E (C, D):
> def __init__(self):
> super(E, self).__init__() # calls C constructor
> print "cons E"
After a second tought, it's probably better to call __init__ method
explicitly in class E:
class A (object):
def __init__(self):
print "cons A"
class B (object):
def __init__(self):
print "cons B"
class C (A):
def __init__(self):
super(C, self).__init__()
print "cons C"
class D (B):
def __init__(self):
super(D, self).__init__()
print "cons D"
class E (C, D):
def __init__(self):
D.__init__(self)
C.__init__(self)
print "cons E"
this way you have to choose which __init__ from class D or class C is
calling, and which is calling first.
Any Python Guru to give is opinion ?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
