Re: super(...).__init__() vs Base.__init__(self)
- From: Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:29:40 -0700
Kent Johnson wrote:
Are there any best practice guidelines for when to use[snip]
super(Class, self).__init__()
vs
Base.__init__(self)
to call a base class __init__()?
>
3. A third fix might be to change both Base and threading.Thread() to call super(...).__init__(). This might break existing code that is written in the style of fix 1 (calling both base class __init__() methods explicitly).
Personally, I'd call the lack of the super calls in threading.Thread and Base bugs. So code relying on that behavior needs to be fixed when the bug is fixed. But __init__() is definitely a tricky case since the number of arguments tends to change in the __init__() methods of classes...
STeVe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: super(...).__init__() vs Base.__init__(self)
- From: Jan Niklas Fingerle
- Re: super(...).__init__() vs Base.__init__(self)
- References:
- super(...).__init__() vs Base.__init__(self)
- From: Kent Johnson
- super(...).__init__() vs Base.__init__(self)
- Prev by Date: Form1.show()
- Next by Date: Re: Finding the public callables of self
- Previous by thread: Re: super(...).__init__() vs Base.__init__(self)
- Next by thread: Re: super(...).__init__() vs Base.__init__(self)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
