Second argument to super().

[Colin J. Williams]

Steve Holden wrote:
> John Roth wrote:
> 
>> "Tobiah" <toby at rcsreg.com> wrote in message 
>> news:1110396167.53bd67fed97c9e826a92b284283b1455 at teranews...
>>
>>> What is the purpose of the second argument to super()?
>>
>>
>>
>> I've always  found the docs to be fairly confusing.
>> They didn't give me enough context to tell what
>> was going on. I also find the terminology confusing:
>> "type" seems to mean "new style class object", and
>> "object" seems to mean "instance."
>>
These are certainly basic terms.  It could help to a glossary setting 
out just what these terms mean.

In some cases type and class are used synonomously.  Clarification would 
help us all.

> I agree that the docs could probably do with some improvement here, but 
> this is mostly because (I suspect) the type-based material has been 
> shoehorned in to the existing documentation structure. My own suspicion 
> was that a more radical revision would yield a better manual, but it 
> doesn't look as though anybody has  had time to attempt it.
> 
A radical revision here would certainly help.

Colin W.