On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 22:19, malmiteria <martin.milon@ensc.fr> wrote:
What i am saying is that *if* super(A, self) *were* to call A's method, that would be a simpler API.
I understand that you're specifically responding to Chris, but to be honest, this is the first time you've explicitly stated this (unless it was previously lost in a sea of words somewhere). So I'd like to respond. If you're suggesting *changing* super's behaviour like this, you have to explain how you expect to handle the (quite possibly literally) millions of lines of code that would be broken by making such a change. So far, all you've offered is that "it would be a simpler API" and had no-one agree with you that this is the case. That's not even remotely close to being sufficient to make such a drastic change.
If you understand that this is my proposal, and not my understanding of today's super, then for the love of god, address my proposal.
If that *is* your proposal, then just drop it. You seem incapable of presenting a case that will justify such a massive breakage, so you're just wasting everyone's time making them read your huge emails. Paul