super() doesn't get superclass

[Ben Finney]

Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed at ix.netcom.com> writes:

> 	Try to interpret it as:

My point exactly. If a function is named 'super' and operates on
classes, it's a pretty strong implication that it's about
superclasses. Any explanation that begins "Try to interpret it as" and
then goes on to explain that it's to do with MRO, *not* superclasses,
is evidence that the function is *badly named*.

I'm not interested in documenting this function, because as I said I
don't see why I would want to use it. My objection is that, as
currently named, it's an *obstacle* when a programmer goes looking for
a way to get a superclass.

Possibly the name 'next_in_mro', while ugly, would at least match the
actual behaviour of this function.

At least then the next person who goes looking for "how do I get the
superclass of A?" won't be misled into trying to use *the wrong
function for that purpose*.

-- 
 \     "If you can't annoy somebody there is little point in writing." |
  `\                                                  -- Kingsley Amis |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney