[Python-3000] A super() idea - no _getframe() involved (original) (raw)

Greg Ewing greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz
Wed Apr 19 09:20:58 CEST 2006

Phillip J. Eby wrote:

That is, it defines the function with MAKECLOSURE instead of MAKEFUNCTION. It also puts a reference to the cell object in the class's dictionary, let's say under cell.

Presumably it would first check if there was already a cell put there by another function and use that.

What happens if the function gets wrapped by a decorator? I suppose it still works, because the cell remains attached to the innermost function where it's needed, right?

Or perhaps the 'type' constructor takes care of this, but if we can have class decorators it might be better to have MAKECLASS do it so it always points to the object that will be bound to the class name in the enclosing scope.

Isn't that backwards? MAKE_CLASS is going to bind it to the class created by the basic class statement, before the decorators get to work on it. The object returned by the decorators might be something different.

Regarding the grammar, I have no strong opinions, although using the 'class' keyword, as in "super(class,self)" has a nice ring to it.

I'd like something decoupled from the super() function, so you can use it for normal inherited calls as well. Not sure what, though.

-- Greg

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list