Super reps a class, not an instance

[Thomas Gagne]

Alex Martelli wrote:

> <snip>
>
> Note that in each of this cases super is a CLASS, not an INSTANCE.
> I suspect this deep-semantic issue is somewhat more important
> than the syntax-sugary one of whether you need to type 5 or 7
> characters, no?-)  But, we can remedy that (see later...).

1) you made a lot of good points in your message
2) references from within an instance to its superclass (however that is
accomplished) are intended to access the superclass's methods/data as an
instance not a class, aren't they?  Maybe this is my smalltalk talking but from
within an instance, if I wrote, "super init" it is with the intention off
kicking-off the init method of my instance's superclass' init.  I don't feel
like I'm saying this well.

At the point that any class is instantiated all the super class' methods and
data are also instantiated, so invokations of the heirarchy without explictly
indicating references to the Class objects are by default refering to the
instantiation of self, no?

Yes, I'll leave writing OO books to the pros.


--
.tom