Guido van Rossum <guido@digicool.com> wrote,
> [Greg Ward, welcome back!]
> > * 'super' is a magic object that only makes sense inside a 'def'
> > inside a 'class' (at least for now; perhaps it could be generalized
> > to work at class scope as well as method scope, but let's keep
> > it simple)
>
> Yes, that's about the only way it can be made to work. The compiler
> will have to (1) detect that 'super' is a free variable, and (2) make
> it a local and initialize it with the proper magic. Or, to relieve
> the burden from the symbol table, we could make super a keyword, at
> the cost of breaking existing code.
I'm not at all sure I like the idea of 'super'. It's far more magic
that I am used to (coming from Python at least). Currently, we spell
'super' like this:
class foo(bar):
def __repr__(self):
return bar.__repr__(self) # that's super!
I like the explicit nature of it. As Guido points out however, this
ends up being ambiguous when we try to make classes more
"instance-like".
Now, how do I like to spell super?
class foo(bar):
def __repr__(self):
return bar._.__repr__(self) # now that's really super!
or, for those who like the "keyword":
class foo(bar):
def __repr__(self):
super = bar._
return super.__repr__(self)
The trick here in the implementation of getattr on the '_'. It return
a proxy object for the class. When attributes are accessed through it
a different search path is taken. This path is the same path that
would be taken by instance attribute look up. In my code, I refer to
this object as the 'unbound instance'. Since accessing a function
through this object will yield an unbound instance method, the name
makes sense to me.
--
Donald Beaudry Ab Initio Software Corp.
201 Spring Street
donb@init.com Lexington, MA 02421
...So much code, so little time...
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4