Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Updated again in r67607. Hopefully, this one has been put to rest. If
someone has further issues with the super() docs, please open a new
report (preferably with suggested wording).
--
resolution: -> fixed
status: open -> closed
Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
I'll look at this further. Since it was originally posted, there have
already been several improvements to the super() docs.
FWIW, there will be no links to super-considered-harmful. Guido has
frowned upon that document. Our documentati
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Clearly, I've not gotten to this; unassigning from myself.
Probably a good thing, since I'm one of the people who probably don't
use it correctly in all cases.
--
assignee: fdrake ->
___
Pyth
Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
This issue seems to have foundered on finding an explanation for the
finer points of super(). Perhaps the glaring errors could at least be
corrected, or the fine points could be omitted or glossed over? For
example change the first sentence of t
