On 29/04/2007 17.04, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> This is only a halfway fix to DRY, and it really only fixes the less >> important half. The important problem with super is that it >> encourages people to write incorrect code by requiring that you >> explicitly specify an argument list. Since calling super with any >> arguments other than the exact same arguments you have received is >> nearly always wrong, requiring that the arglist be specified is an >> attractive nuisance. > > Nearly always wrong? You must be kidding. There are tons of reasons to > call your super method with modified arguments. E.g. clipping, > transforming, ... Really? http://fuhm.net/super-harmful/ I don't believe that there are really so many. I would object to forcing super to *only* be able to pass unmodified arguments. But if it had an alternative syntax to do it (ala Dylan's next-method), I would surely use it often enough to make it worth. -- Giovanni Bajo
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