[Python-3000] [Python-Dev] PEP 367: New Super (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Thu May 31 13:48:48 CEST 2007

I've updated the patch; the latest version now contains the grammar and compiler changes needed to make super a keyword and to automatically add a required parameter 'super' when super is used. This requires the latest p3yk branch (r55692 or higher).

Comments anyone? What do people think of the change of semantics for the im_class field of bound (and unbound) methods?

--Guido

On 5/29/07, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

Hi Tim,

I've gone ahead and cooked up a tiny demo patch that uses imclass to store what you called imtype. Because I don't have the parser changes ready yet, this requires you to declare a keyword-only arg named 'super'; this triggers special code that set it to super(imclass, imself). http://python.org/sf/1727209 I haven't tried to discover yet how much breaks due to the change of semantics for imclass. --Guido On 5/27/07, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > On 5/27/07, Tim Delaney <timothy.c.delaney at gmail.com> wrote: > > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > > > The bound method object isn't stored in the class -- it's created by > > > the "C.method" or "inst.method" getattr operation. I don't see how > > > this would introduce a cycle. > > > > > >> If we store the class, we can store it as a weakref - the when the > > >> super object is created, a strong reference to the class exists. > > > > We need to create some relationship between the unbound method and the > > class. So the class has a reference to the unbound method, and the unbound > > method has a reference to the class, thus creating a cycle. Bound methods > > don't come into it - it's the unbound method that's the problem. > > Still wrong, I think. The unbound method object also isn't stored in > the class. It's returned by the C.method operation. Compare C.method > (which returns an unbound method) to C.dict['method'] (which > returns the actual function object stored in the class). > > > > Since class and type are synonym (as you say) having both imclass and > > > imtype would be a bad idea. > > > > I'm struggling to think of another, not too complicated name that conveys > > the same information. > > Keep trying. imtype is not acceptable. :-) > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) >

-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list