Missive #02441: super()
If you're going to use object composition, creating a super (no pun intended)
class, you are forming an explicit object hierarchy (unlike mix-in style). In
this case, if the method exists in the parent class, you shouldn't give the
user (or subclass) the choice of call
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 at 6:40:22 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:30:54 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
> > 1) It tried to make Object the parent of every class.
>
> Tried, and succeeded.
Oh? How about:
class superdict(dict):
"""I'm going to extend the
On Friday, September 13, 2013 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:23:21 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> which would be silly. Only somebody who doesn't understand how
> inheritance works in Python would do that. There's simply no need for it,
> and in fact it would
On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 7:03:49 AM UTC-5, Eddilbert Macharia wrote:
> I think i kind of understand now.
>
> Instead of python having data types like int, string, e.t.c it has two
> primitive types which are class type and class object which are created by
> python interpreter during its setu
On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 7:33:11 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:24 AM, TheDoctor wrote:
> > A type is not an object in the same way an instantiated type is an object
> > -- anymore than a blueprint for a building is the building itself.
>
On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 7:33:11 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> And a type is an
> object too. There is no significant difference here.
Let me make this clearer to you, Chris, because I don't want you to have to
suck it too, like the rest of this community.
A type is not an object. You see
On Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 12:39:37 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:35:58 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
> > Long story short: the lambda
> > calculus folks have to split from the Turing machine folks.
> > These models of computation should not use the same language. The
> > A type is not an object in the same way an instantiated type is an object
> > -- anymore than a blueprint for a building is the building itself.
>
> Point 1
>
> Yes. You may be onto something here Mark [I assume that's your name].
> Some very intelligent people have suggested that the slopp
On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-5, rand...@fastmail.us wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015, at 20:24, TheDoctor wrote:
> > A type is not an object in the same way an instantiated type is an object
> > -- anymore than a blueprint for a building is the building itself.
>
&
