2012/5/20 Calvin Spealman :
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
>> 2012/5/20 Nick Coghlan :
>>> PEP 3135 defines the new zero-argument form of super() as implicitly
>>> equivalent to super(__class__, ), and up until 3.2 has
>>> behaved accordingly: if you accessed __clas
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2012/5/20 Nick Coghlan :
>> PEP 3135 defines the new zero-argument form of super() as implicitly
>> equivalent to super(__class__, ), and up until 3.2 has
>> behaved accordingly: if you accessed __class__ from inside a method,
>> you woul
2012/5/20 Nick Coghlan :
> PEP 3135 defines the new zero-argument form of super() as implicitly
> equivalent to super(__class__, ), and up until 3.2 has
> behaved accordingly: if you accessed __class__ from inside a method,
> you would receive a reference to the lexically containing class.
I don't
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:51:27 +1000
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> PEP 3135 defines the new zero-argument form of super() as implicitly
>> equivalent to super(__class__, ), and up until 3.2 has
>> behaved accordingly: if you accessed __class__ fr
On Sun, 20 May 2012 18:51:27 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> PEP 3135 defines the new zero-argument form of super() as implicitly
> equivalent to super(__class__, ), and up until 3.2 has
> behaved accordingly: if you accessed __class__ from inside a method,
> you would receive a reference to the lexic
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> What I plan to do:
> 1. Revert the previous fix for #12370
> 2. Add tests for direct access to __class__ from methods
> 3. Create a *new* fix for #12370 that only affects the class scope,
> not the method bodies (this will be harder than the p
PEP 3135 defines the new zero-argument form of super() as implicitly
equivalent to super(__class__, ), and up until 3.2 has
behaved accordingly: if you accessed __class__ from inside a method,
you would receive a reference to the lexically containing class.
In 3.3, that currently doesn't work: you