super() doesn't get superclass

Michele Simionato michele.simionato at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 12:52:14 CEST 2007


On Sep 19, 12:36 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
42.desthuilli... at wtf.websiteburo.oops.com> wrote:

> The next class in the MRO *is* a superclass of the *instance*. Else it
> wouldn't be in the MRO !-)

Bruno, there is no such a thing as a superclass in a multiple
inheritance
world, and it is a very bad idea to continue to use that terminology.
I was
convinced of that by Bjorn Pettersen in a thread on comp.lang.python
in May 2003
and you may Google for it. You may find there convincing arguments
against the
superclass concept, some of which I report in
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~micheles/python/super.html

> Well, I understand that you disagree with both the documention and the
> name of super. As far as I'm concerned, the mere fact that this
> discussion happens is probably a sign that there's something to be fixed
> here - at least wrt documentation, possibly wrt/ naming. But the
> *feature* by itself is certainly something we do want to keep, whatever
> some may argue.

Well, I am personally *against* multiple inheritance (i.e. IMO it
gives more
troubles than advantages)
>
> The goal is to call the correct "next" method according to MRO. Indeed,
> it could have been name "call_next_method".

Right.

     Michele Simionato




More information about the Python-list mailing list