Vincent Besanceney added the comment:
If I understand it right, in a simple case like this:
class Foo(object):
def __setattr__(self, name, value):
# some logic, then...
super(Foo, self).__setattr__(name, value)
calling super is equivalent to calling object.__setattr__, but doesn't have any
added-value since there's no cooperative multiple inheritance involved, in that
case we are better off calling the parent class method directly.
If Foo evolves to have multiple ancestors, object has a __setattr__ method and
that object is always the last class in the MRO chain, so any sequence of calls
to super(..).__setattr__ is guaranteed to end with a call to object.__setattr__
method (assuming ancestors __setattr__ method, if any, calls super as well),
and that may be what we want, i.e. to also benefit from an ancestor __setattr__
method.
Hmm, this last point may be too specific if not out of scope in regards to the
documentation. Falling back to the original need, from the documentation "If
__setattr__() wants to assign to an instance attribute...", so as you said,
"calling object.__setattr__ gives a known, guaranteed behavior".
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue21814>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
