On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 10:24 AM malmiteria <martin.milon@ensc.fr> wrote:
i mean yeah, of course you don't need super. And i also understand that feeling that composition is better than inheritance.
That's a bit beside the point -- we can use inheritance, and also be more explicit about calling superclass methods if need be.
But that's beside my point, super acts as a proxy to a parent, and is by default the feature to refer a parent from within a class method.
Almost -- I think super() acts a proxy to the *perents*, plural. even if the current class inherits from only one class, that superclass may inherit from more than one class. If you just want the superclass, you can call it directly: class B(A): def some_method(self, ...): A.some_method(self) And if you do that, you will get a good fraction of the behaviour you are expecting. The point of super() is to provide a way to, yes, implicitly, call a method on all the superclasses in the inheritance tree. There's more than one way to do that, but it's perfectly reasonable that Python provide only one way, with clear rules, which is what we have now. And if there's going to be one way, the MRO currently in use is a pretty darn good one. Yes, sometimes the specified MRO isn't what you need -- but It's my impression that your proposal really doesn't add anything over simply calling superclasses directly the way you want. But if you want to show how useful it could be, then go ahead and continue working on your prototype,and share it with the world. If people find it useful, then maybe it would be worth considering as a addition to Python. NOTE: I would work hard to find real examples where you can show how the current super() doesn't work well, and how explicitly calling superclass methods is substantially uglier than using your parent() approach. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris) Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython