> guido wrote:
>
> > > class MyClass (BaseClass):
> > > def foo (self, arg1, arg2):
> > > super.foo(arg1, arg2)
> >
> > I'm sure that's everybody's favorite way to spell it!
>
> not mine. my brain contains far too much Python 1.5.2 code
> for it to accept that some variables are dynamically scoped,
> while others are lexically scoped.
>
> why not spell it out:
>
> self.__super__.foo(arg1, arg2)
>
> or
>
> self.super.foo(arg1, arg2)
>
> or
>
> super(self).foo(arg1, arg2)
>
> > Or, to relieve the burden from the symbol table, we could make super
> > a keyword, at the cost of breaking existing code.
>
> hey, how about introducing $ as a keyword prefix for newly introduced
> keywords?
>
> $super.foo(arg1, arg2)
>
> (this can of course be mapped to either of my previous suggestions;
> "$foo" either means "self.foo" or "foo(self)"...)
>
> and to save a little typing, only use it for keywords that start with
> an "s" (should leave us plenty of expansion room):
>
> $uper.foo(arg1, arg2)
>
> otoh, if "super" is common enough to motivate introducing magic objects
> into python, maybe "$" should mean "super."?
>
> $foo(arg1, arg2)
>
> and while we're at it, let's introduce "@" for "self.".
>
> gotta run -- time for my monthly reboot /F
LOL! But you forgot the spelling of
self.__super.foo(arg1, arg2)
which would pass in the class name that's the other necessary input to
a proper implementation of super. :-)
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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