Hey,
When you have multiple inheritance and you e.g. want to explicitely call
__init__ of one of the classes inherited from, that is not the first in the
list of classes to inherit from.
Cheers,
Lars
Lars Liedtke
Senior Software Developer
[Tel.] +49 721 98993-
[Fax] +49 721 98993-
[E-Ma
As a follow-up to my yesterday's question - are there any recommendations
on the usage of super()?
It's clear that super() can be used to invoke parent's:
- instance methods
- static methods
- constants ("static" attributes in the parent class, e.g. super().NUMBER).
This all works, but are the
On 10/02/2022 09:20, Igor Basko wrote:
Hi everyone,
This is my first question here. Hope to get some clarification.
Basically this question is about multiple inheritance and the usage of
super().__init__ in parent
classes.
So I have two classes that inherit from the same base class.
For example
Hi everyone,
This is my first question here. Hope to get some clarification.
Basically this question is about multiple inheritance and the usage of
super().__init__ in parent
classes.
So I have two classes that inherit from the same base class.
For example class B and class C inherit from A:
class
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
I see.
Then is there a reason why
return super(Subclass, self).parrot()
would be prefered over the "classic"
return Base.parrot(self)
?
Or is it just a matter of preference ?
For a longer explanation, see:
James Knight: Python's Super Considered Harmful
http://fuhm
En Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:50:45 -0300, Jean-Michel Pichavant
escribió:
Duncan Booth wrote:
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
class SubClass(Base):
colour = "Red"
def parrot(self):
"""docstring for Subclass"""
return super(Subclass, self).parrot()
I'm not a big fan of supe
Jean-Michel Pichavant writes:
[...]
> Then is there a reason why
>>>> return super(Subclass, self).parrot()
> would be prefered over the "classic"
>>>> return Base.parrot(self)
> ?
>
> Or is it just a matter of preference ?
Using super() calls
Duncan Booth wrote:
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
class SubClass(Base):
colour = "Red"
def parrot(self):
"""docstring for Subclass"""
return super(Subclass, self).parrot()
I'm not a big fan of super, but I'm still wondering if
return super(self.__cl
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>
class SubClass(Base):
colour = "Red"
def parrot(self):
"""docstring for Subclass"""
return super(Subclass, self).parrot()
> I'm not a big fan of super, but I'm still wondering if
>
> >>> return super(self.__class__,
class SubClass(Base):
colour = "Red"
def parrot(self):
"""docstring for Subclass"""
return super(Subclass, self).parrot()
I'm not a big fan of super, but I'm still wondering if
>>> return super(self.__class__, self).parrot()
would have made it.
What if Subclass has mo
On Jan 1, 12:11 am, Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:19:11 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote:
>
> >> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:03:22 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote: ...
> >
On Jan 2, iu2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I missed new style classes though... Now I know how to use them (not
> fully), but I must say it has been difficult. I'll appreciate some
> good documentation about them.
>
> Thanks
> iu2
This is a decent start:
http://www.python.org/doc/newstyle/
Cheers
On Jan 1, 8:12 pm, Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We accept this seems natural to you. You don't seem to understand why
> others might not think so. I fear this is the kind of thing that
> separates programmers into two classes: the smart ones that can set up
> the chains, and
iu2 wrote:
> On Jan 1, 12:32 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> import read_my_mind_and_do_what_I_want
>> first. (Module expected in Python 9.7, due out in 2058.)
>
> That's because it seems to you like some esoteric feature.
> To me it seems natural with OO.
An
On Jan 1, 12:32 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>
> import read_my_mind_and_do_what_I_want
>
> first. (Module expected in Python 9.7, due out in 2058.)
That's because it seems to you like some esoteric feature.
To me it seems natural with OO.
> "Special cases ar
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:56:41 -0800, iu2 wrote:
> Indeed I might want to chain methods in all sort of ways:
> @chain_call_before - call the parent's method before the derived method
> @chain_call_after - call the parent's method after the derived method
> @chain_call_sum - sum the result of the par
On Jan 1, 9:59 am, Michele Simionato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> No PEP, this would never pass. There would be no way
> to stop a method from calling its parent: you would
> lose control of your classes, so I think this is a
> bad idea.
Not all classes, only classes the programmer chooses to hav
On Jan 1, 7:56 am, iu2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no one has to remember to call the parent's get_name method. It's done
> automatically.
>
> (A PEP maybe? I sense you don't really like it.. ;-)
> What do you think? Good? Too implicit?
>
> iu2
No PEP, this would never pass. There would be no way
On Dec 31 2007, 6:03 pm, Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> As to the original idea, better to give it up.
> Typically code for a "chained" method "foo" that
> returns a result will want to (in some way) use
> the result from that call in forming its result.
> Python's super allows yo
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:19:11 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:03:22 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote: ...
> def chain(meth): # A decorator for calling super.
> def f(self, *arg
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:19:11 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:03:22 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote:
>>> Steven D'Aprano wrote: ...
def chain(meth): # A decorator for calling super.
def f(self, *args, **kwargs):
resul
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:03:22 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote:
>> Steven D'Aprano wrote: ...
>>> def chain(meth): # A decorator for calling super.
>>> def f(self, *args, **kwargs):
>>> result = meth(self, *args, **kwargs)
>>> S = super(self.__class__, s
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:03:22 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> ...
>> I'm not sure if this is your only problem or not, but super() only
>> works with new-style classes, not with classic classes. You must
>> inherit from object, or it cannot possibly work.
>>
>> Change
En Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:08:43 -0200, Steven D'Aprano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi�:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:47:31 -0800, iu2 wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to make a method call automatically to its super using this
>> syntax:
>
>
> def chain(meth): # A decorator for calling super.
> def f(self, *ar
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> ...
> I'm not sure if this is your only problem or not, but super() only works
> with new-style classes, not with classic classes. You must inherit from
> object, or it cannot possibly work.
>
> Change "class A" to "class A(object)".
Absolutely correct.
However, the sug
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:47:31 -0800, iu2 wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm trying to make a method call automatically to its super using this
> syntax:
[snip code]
I'm not sure if this is your only problem or not, but super() only works
with new-style classes, not with classic classes. You must inherit from
Hi
I'm trying to make a method call automatically to its super using this
syntax:
class A:
chained = ['pr']
def pr(self):
print 'Hello from A'
class B(A):
def pr(self):
print 'Hello from B'
chain(B, A)
b = B()
b.pr()
b.pr() will print
Hello from B
Hello from A
I'm
On 8/16/07, 7stud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I run the following code and call super() in the Base class's
> __init__ () method, only one Parent's __init__() method is called.
As the other posters have mentioned, each class needs to make a call
to super. This is because the super call does
7stud wrote:
> When I run the following code and call super() in the Base class's
> __init__ () method, only one Parent's __init__() method is called.
>
>
> class Parent1(object):
> def __init__(self):
> print "Parent1 init called."
> self.x = 10
>
> class Parent2(object):
>
7stud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I run the following code and call super() in the Base class's
> __init__ () method, only one Parent's __init__() method is called.
>
>
> class Parent1(object):
> def __init__(self):
> print "Parent1 init called."
> self.x = 10
>
> cla
When I run the following code and call super() in the Base class's
__init__ () method, only one Parent's __init__() method is called.
class Parent1(object):
def __init__(self):
print "Parent1 init called."
self.x = 10
class Parent2(object):
def __init__(self):
pr
Michele Simionato ha scritto:
> I believe the new style system was designed to allows this sort of
> mixing and
> that there are no issues at all.
Thinking a bit more, there are no issues at all if you know what a new
style class is and if you do not expect it to work as an old-style one
;) For th
Carl Banks ha scritto:
> Pupeno wrote:
> > I see, thank you.
> >
> > class MyConfig(ConfigParser, object):
> > def add_section(self, section)
> > super(MyConfig, self).add_section(section)
> >
> > seems to work and as expected. Is there anything wrong with it ?
>
> Wow.
>
> I highly r
Pupeno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> class MyConfig(ConfigParser, object):
> def add_section(self, section)
> super(MyConfig, self).add_section(section)
>
> seems to work and as expected. Is there anything wrong with it ?
yes.
(1) There's a colon missing in the def-line. ;-)
(2) Th
Pupeno wrote:
> I see, thank you.
>
> class MyConfig(ConfigParser, object):
> def add_section(self, section)
> super(MyConfig, self).add_section(section)
>
> seems to work and as expected. Is there anything wrong with it ?
Wow.
I highly recommend not doing this, unless the new type
> I see, thank you.
>
> class MyConfig(ConfigParser, object):
> def add_section(self, section)
> super(MyConfig, self).add_section(section)
>
> seems to work and as expected. Is there anything wrong with it ?
>
I have never seen this before. :) I don't know the answer, but I'm
int
Laszlo Nagy wrote:
> Pupeno írta:
>> Hello,
>> I have a class called MyConfig, it is based on Python's
>> ConfigParser.ConfigParser.
>> It implements add_section(self, section), which is also implemented on
>> ConfigParser.ConfigParser, which I want to call.
>> So, reducing the problem to the bare
Pupeno írta:
> Hello,
> I have a class called MyConfig, it is based on Python's
> ConfigParser.ConfigParser.
> It implements add_section(self, section), which is also implemented on
> ConfigParser.ConfigParser, which I want to call.
> So, reducing the problem to the bare minimum, the class (with a
Hello,
I have a class called MyConfig, it is based on Python's
ConfigParser.ConfigParser.
It implements add_section(self, section), which is also implemented on
ConfigParser.ConfigParser, which I want to call.
So, reducing the problem to the bare minimum, the class (with a useless
add_section that
39 matches
Mail list logo
