Benjamin Peterson benjamin at python.org
Sun May 20 22:28:43 CEST 2012

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3135 (new super()) __class__ references broken in 3.3
• Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3135 (new super()) __class__ references broken in 3.3
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

2012/5/20 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>:
> PEP 3135 defines the new zero-argument form of super() as implicitly
> equivalent to super(__class__, <first argument>), and up until 3.2 has
> behaved accordingly: if you accessed __class__ from inside a method,
> you would receive a reference to the lexically containing class.

I don't understand why PEP 3135 cares how it's implemented. It's silly
enough that you can get the class by "using" super (even just
referencing the name). Thus that you can get __class__ reeks of more
an implementation detail than a feature to me.

-- 
Regards,
Benjamin

---

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3135 (new super()) __class__ references broken in 3.3
• Next message: [Python-Dev] PEP 3135 (new super()) __class__ references broken in 3.3
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list