3 ms·

> That's not at all what Python does. I know what's going on and my comment was sufficiently accurate to get the point across in 1 sentence. I wasn't exactly i

> That's not at all what Python does. I know what's going on and my comment was sufficiently accurate to get the point across in 1 sentence. I wasn't exactly intending to get into a lecture on MRO here. > C++ solves the problem of not calling the "correct" superclass by default by foisting the responsibility of choosing the correct subset onto the derived class author Which is much better than leaving a ticking time bomb. > doesn't solve the "I called my superclass' method too many times" Er, yes it does. Every class instance in a hierarchy is initialized exactly once. Trying to call it twice will produce an error (e.g. "class has already been initialized"). > Python resolves all three of these It does not. It's perfectly fine letting you call a class's __init__ multiple times. Unlike with C++. > Aside: "idiosyncratic" is an interesting word to use given that the C3 MRO was originally intended for Dylan. It is a fine word. "Idiosyncrasy" does not imply there exists only 1 person in the whole world engaging in the given practice: "Her habit of using “like” in every sentence was just one of her idiosyncrasies." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiosyncrasy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiosyncrasy I'm tired of the pointless arguing so this will be my last comment.

theg5prank 6y ago
> I know what's going on and my comment was sufficiently accurate to get the point across in 1 sentence. I wasn't exactly intending to get into a lecture on MRO here. I was trying to not assume you were lying through your teeth about what Python method lookup is like in order to conflate fact and your personal opinion. Happy to be corrected. > Which is much better than leaving a ticking time bomb. It's a different implementation choice. That it is better is a perfectly valid opinion. Though, if A doesn't already know it's part of a multiple inheritance hierarchy it's not possible to know what __init__'s signature should be. I'm sure you're eliding that for a good reason, though. > Er, yes it does. Every class instance in a hierarchy is initialized exactly once. Trying to call it twice will produce an error (e.g. "class has already been initialized"). This is true only for constructors, not arbitrary methods; __init__ in Python is much more arguably an ordinary method. I'm going to assume you're always using virtual inheritance, an opt-in feature, because otherwise you are being misleading and disingenuous in more ways. > It does not. It's perfectly fine letting you call a class's __init__ multiple times. Unlike with C++. True only for constructors in C++, and if you don't use super() in Python. Python treats __init__ and other methods fairly uniformly here. >It is a fine word. "Idiosyncrasy" does not imply there exists only 1 person in the whole world engaging in the given practice: >"Her habit of using “like” in every sentence was just one of her idiosyncrasies." >https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiosyncrasy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiosyncrasy Sure, go off, but my point is that other languages you have heard of do the same thing. It's not some dumb thing Python is doing for no reason as you were implying.

theg5prank 6y ago

> I know what's going on and my comment was sufficiently accurate to get the point across in 1 sentence. I wasn't exactly intending to get into a lecture on MRO here. I was trying to not assume you were lying through your teeth about what Python method lookup is like in order to conflate fact and your personal opinion. Happy to be corrected. > Which is much better than leaving a ticking time bomb. It's a different implementation choice. That it is better is a perfectly valid opinion. Though, if A doesn't already know it's part of a multiple inheritance hierarchy it's not possible to know what __init__'s signature should be. I'm sure you're eliding that for a good reason, though. > Er, yes it does. Every class instance in a hierarchy is initialized exactly once. Trying to call it twice will produce an error (e.g. "class has already been initialized"). This is true only for constructors, not arbitrary methods; __init__ in Python is much more arguably an ordinary method. I'm going to assume you're always using virtual inheritance, an opt-in feature, because otherwise you are being misleading and disingenuous in more ways. > It does not. It's perfectly fine letting you call a class's __init__ multiple times. Unlike with C++. True only for constructors in C++, and if you don't use super() in Python. Python treats __init__ and other methods fairly uniformly here. >It is a fine word. "Idiosyncrasy" does not imply there exists only 1 person in the whole world engaging in the given practice: >"Her habit of using “like” in every sentence was just one of her idiosyncrasies." >https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiosyncrasy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiosyncrasy Sure, go off, but my point is that other languages you have heard of do the same thing. It's not some dumb thing Python is doing for no reason as you were implying.