On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 12:00:04PM -0700, Neil Toronto wrote:
(Disclaimer: I have no issue with "self." and "super." attribute access, which is what most people think of when they think "implicit self".)
I don't feel easy about the new super either (maybe from a different perspective than Neil's). Why should self be passed to methods using a parameter but super should use magic (something like a global name that holds different objects in different places).
Instead of making self implicit, I'd like super to use less magic. I much preferred super(self).foo(*args). Some magic for finding the surrounding class might be needed but at least we don't use the first parameter of a method implicitly. (I don't see this in the alternative proposals sections of :PEP:`3135`). It can be made backward compatible, too. I have not read new super discussions; So sorry if it has been already discussed.
-- Ali