April 15, 2011
1:45 a.m.
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:58:14 +1200, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
P.J. Eby wrote:
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().
One such case is where someone is using super() in a single-inheritance environment as a way of not having to write the base class name explicitly into calls to base methods. (I wouldn't recommend using super() that way myself, but some people do.) In that situation, any failure to call super() is almost certainly deliberate.
Why not? It seems more useful than using it for chaining, especially given the compiler hack in Python3. -- R. David Murray http://www.bitdance.com