super() doesn't get superclass

[Ben Finney]

Scott David Daniels <Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org> writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
> > aleax at mac.com (Alex Martelli) writes:
> >
> >> In general, "a superclass of foo" means "a class X such that foo is a
> >> sublass of X"
> >
> > Sure. However, this doesn't equate to the assertion that "next class
> > in the MRO is the superclass", which is what I was responding to.
> >
> One thing not pointed out in this thread is that the chain of classes
> on the MRO starting with super(A, obj) _will_ include all superclasses
> of A.  That is the guarantee of the MRO, and that is why super is an
> appropriate name.

Yes, it does include those classes. The problem is it also includes an
unknown (to the implementation of A) number of classes that are *not*
superclasses of A. Thus, 'super' is a *bad* name for such a function.

-- 
 \            "There are always those who think they know what is your |
  `\       responsibility better than you do."  -- Ralph Waldo Emerson |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney