This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author maggyero
Recipients gvanrossum, maggyero, rhettinger
Date 2022-03-30.07:03:56
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1648623836.66.0.145005211582.issue44090@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
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.
History
Date User Action Args
2022-03-30 07:03:56maggyerosetrecipients: + maggyero, gvanrossum, rhettinger
2022-03-30 07:03:56maggyerosetmessageid: <1648623836.66.0.145005211582.issue44090@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2022-03-30 07:03:56maggyerolinkissue44090 messages
2022-03-30 07:03:56maggyerocreate