Exactly what Michael said. Stopping the chain going upwards is one thing. Stopping it going sideways is another. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzyman@voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
On 14/04/2011 16:34, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 03:55 PM 4/14/2011 +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
Ricardo isn't suggesting that Python should always call super for you, but when you *start* the chain by calling super then Python could ensure that all the methods are called for you. If an individual method doesn't call super then a theoretical implementation could skip the parents methods (unless another child calls super).
That would break classes that deliberately don't call super. I can think of examples in my own code that would break, especially in __init__() cases.
It's perfectly sensible and useful for there to be classes that intentionally fail to call super(), and yet have a subclass that wants to use super(). So, this change would expose an internal implementation detail of a class to its subclasses, and make "fragile base class" problems worse. (i.e., where an internal change to a base class breaks a previously-working subclass).
It shouldn't do. What I was suggesting is that a method not calling super shouldn't stop a *sibling* method being called, but could still prevent the *parent* method being called.
Michael
-- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html