benjamin.kaplan at case.edu
Wed Feb 11 03:31:06 CET 2009
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Fetchinson <
fetchinson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Consider whether you really need to use super().
> >>>>>>> http://fuhm.net/super-harmful/
> >>>> Because throwing around that link carries about the same amount of
> >>>> information as "perl is better than python", "my IDE is better than
> >>>> yours", "vim rulez!", "emacs is cooler than vim", etc, etc.
> >>> Not at all. It contains accurate and valuable information that isn't
> >>> available elsewhere.
> >> But does not contain other valuable information which would demystify
> >> super. If only this source is shown to a person who wants to learn the
> >> proper usage of super, the impression he/she gets will be distorted.
> > Why so? At the end there is a "best practices" recipe that pretty much
> > summarizes the proper usage of super, and AFAIK it's the right way to use
> > it. Don't you agree with any of the conclusions?
> >> Example: 1. somebody asks about threading 2. reply comes: there is a
> >> GIL! you can't do real threading. Now this reply might be technically
> >> more-or-less correct, it is misleading and does not help the poster.
> >> An informed discussion of the various solutions that does not involve
> >> a rant about the GIL would be very useful though.
> > As I said, the article presents a "recipe" for super() usage, and I'd
> > consider it very helpful. It's far from just saying "super s*cks!", or
> > "the GIL s*cks!" or something like that.
> >> You might want to start with
> >> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=236275
> > ...which, although the author says it was written a long time ago, was
> > published until less than six months ago, and has very low visibility.
> >> You are right, it's not in the documentation. But if somebody asks on
> >> c.l.p the appropriate answer, I think, is to point to information such
> >> as the one above, and not the misleading "harmful" essay.
> > According to Google, nobody has menctioned the "harmful" essay in this
> > group since April 2008 , months before Simionato's article were
> > available... So this is the *first* time the reference to the former
> > could have been replaced by M.S.' one... don't be so strict!
> > Anyway, the right thing to do, IMHO, is to publish correct and accurate
> > documentation in the main Python site. Not everybody knows about this
> > group existence, nor has the time/experience/interest on subscribe here,
> > post a question and wait for an answer. I've seen some posts in
> > saying something like "this is confusing, we should evangelize people on
> > c.l.p. on the right way to do it" and I completely disagree; the right
> > place for such things is the product documentation, or -to a much lesser
> > degree because it's online only- some article collection linked from the
> > main site (like the "Other resources" left bar, already present).
> >>>> Honestly, I don't understand how this thing got so much out of
> >>>> control. If anyone starts an intelligent question or remark about
> >>>> super, this essay is thrown in no matter what. Anyone can explain why?
> >>> Because for a very loooooong time (seven years, 2001-2008) super was
> >>> almost undocumented. The Library Reference -before release 2.6- only
> >>> had a short paragraph, the [...]
> >> You are right, the documentation needs some work in this regard. But
> >> again, just because some sources are not in the documentation doesn't
> >> mean that the most opinionated essay is the best source. A little
> >> search turns up much more useful ones.
> > (not according to Google : I get the "harmful" article in the top, the
> > thread in python-dev, a couple threads in c.l.p including posts by M.S.,
> > his article in artima, and nothing more relevant than "Monty Python Super
> > Star" up to the 3rd page)
> > *Now* that *I* am aware of the recent article series by M.S., the next
> > time someone asks *me* about super(), probably I'll refer her to both
> > and J.K.'s articles. Last time I checked (perhaps one or two years ago),
> > the "harmful" article was almost the only relevant source of info about
> > super().
> > 
> >  http://www.google.com/search?q=python+super
> Okay, I think we converged to a common denominator. I agree with you
> that the documentation needs additions about super and I also agree
> with you that referring to both MS and JK articles is appropriate when
> a question about super comes up.
> It's good to have a discussion when views actually converge and not
> diverge at the end :)
Wait, that's not supposed to happen. This is Usenet after all. Quick,
someone comment on the GIL!
> Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-list