class SubFoo(Foo): def __init__(self, *args, **kw): Foo(self, *args, **kw) ...
Guido:
I like the idea, but it would mean a major reworking of the grammar and the parser. Can I persuade you to keep this on ice until 2.0?
What exactly would the semantics be? While I hate the apply() loops you have to jump through nowadays to get this behaviour I don't funny understand how this would work in general (as opposed to in this case). For instance, would Foo(self, 12, *args, **kw) be allowed? And Foo(self, *args, x=12, **kw) ? -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ www.oratrix.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Jack Jansen wrote:
What exactly would the semantics be? While I hate the apply() loops you have to jump through nowadays to get this behaviour I don't funny understand how this would work in general (as opposed to in this case). For instance, would Foo(self, 12, *args, **kw) be allowed? And Foo(self, *args, x=12, **kw)
Following the rule used for argument processing now, if it's unambiguous, it should be allowed, and not otherwise. So, IMHO, the above two should be allowed, and I suspect Foo.__init__(self, *args, *args2) could be too, but Foo.__init__(self, **kw, **kw2) should not, as dictionary addition is not allowed. However, I could live with the more restricted version as well. --david
participants (2)
-
David Ascher -
Jack Jansen