Minimalist Classes

Axel Rauschmayer axel at
Tue Nov 1 12:06:05 PDT 2011

My bad. I thought and were different cases, but they obviously aren’t.

On Nov 1, 2011, at 20:03 , Jeremy Ashkenas wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at> wrote:
> Another point to consider: What happens if there are several calls and the last one makes a call (infinite recursion can be prevented via a parameter)
> We're getting mixed up in time, as I just answered that in the previous message. To quote myself:
> > ... and even for fancier cases where you restart the same super() chain recursively 
> > from the outside. Imagine if one of the deeper's itself calls, 
> > with a direct reference to the instance (and a different parameter, to avoid infinite 
> > recursion). You can imagine super counters as a stack instead of a value, and 
> > push a fresh one on, popping it when the new call exits.
> ... a simple stack of records, one for each re-starting of the super() chain, should do. When calling super() from a function, it's easy for the runtime to tell if that function was itself invoked via super(), or from the top level.

Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list