Message416326
By the way:
> I don't think we need two ways to do it.
So do you think we could drop the support for single-argument super?
Michele said in his article:
> There is a single use case for the single argument syntax of super that I am aware of, but I think it gives more troubles than advantages. The use case is the implementation of autosuper made by Guido on his essay about new-style classes.
> If it was me, I would just remove the single argument syntax of super, making it illegal. But this would probably break someone code, so I don't think it will ever happen in Python 2.X. I did ask on the Python 3000 mailing list about removing unbound super object (the title of the thread was let's get rid of unbound super) and this was Guido's reply:
>> Thanks for proposing this -- I've been scratching my head wondering what the use of unbound super() would be. :-) I'm fine with killing it -- perhaps someone can do a bit of research to try and find out if there are any real-life uses (apart from various auto-super clones)? --- Guido van Rossum
> Unfortunaly as of now unbound super objects are still around in Python 3.0, but you should consider them morally deprecated. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2022-03-30 07:03:56 | maggyero | set | recipients:
+ maggyero, gvanrossum, rhettinger |
2022-03-30 07:03:56 | maggyero | set | messageid: <1648623836.66.0.145005211582.issue44090@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2022-03-30 07:03:56 | maggyero | link | issue44090 messages |
2022-03-30 07:03:56 | maggyero | create | |
|