super() doesn't get superclass

[Ben Finney]

Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> writes:

> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:00:40 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> 
> > In its latter form, it is worthless to me when I'm looking for
> > "get superclass of A", but its name and parameters and
> > documentation all lead me very strongly to believe otherwise.
> 
> Why are you looking for the superclass of A?

Currently irrelevant to the point. Whether for good or bad reasons, I
looked for a way to "get the superclass of A". Everything about
'super' — its name, parameter semantics, and documentation — all
firmly led me to believe that was the correct function for that
purpose.

It's not; as currently implemented, it serves an incompatibly
different purpose.

What I'm pointing out is that it's currently very misleadingly named,
its semantics mislead the programmer about how it will be used, and it
is misleadingly documented. Whether it should be removed entirely or
cleaned up, I don't know; all I can do with my current knowledge is to
point out how it gets in the way as it stands.

-- 
 \     "The truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize |
  `\                      it."  -- Mark Twain, _Following the Equator_ |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney