Why doesn't __call__ lead to infinite recursion?

[Michael Hudson]

"Andrew Dalke" <adalke at mindspring.com> writes:

> Aahz:
> > No time to investigate further, but all your examples used classic
> > classes instead of new-style classes; I'm pretty sure that new-style
> > classes will more closely emulate the way functions work.  There's also
> > the wrinkle I didn't mention that functions use a dict proxy IIRC.
> 
> Interesting.  Very interesting.

Yes :-)

You have to have something like this when you do things like 'print
type(foo)'.  This should call the *types* *bound* __str__ method, not
try to call the *instances* *unbound* __str__ method...

Cheers,
mwh

-- 
  Its unmanageable complexity has spawned more fear-preventing tools
  than any other language, but the solution _should_ have been to 
  create and use a language that does not overload the whole goddamn 
  human brain with irrelevant details.  -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp