Menu
Is super() not meant to be used with staticmethods?
When I try something like
class First(object): @staticmethod def getlist(): return ['first'] class Second(First): @staticmethod def getlist(): l = super(Second).getlist() l.append('second') return l a = Second.getlist() print a I get the following error
Traceback (most recent call last): File "asdf.py", line 13, in <module> a = Second.getlist() File "asdf.py", line 9, in getlist l = super(Second).getlist() AttributeError: 'super' object has no attribute 'getlist' If I change the staticmethods to classmethods and pass the class instance to super(), things work fine. Am I calling super(type) incorrectly here or is there something I'm missing?
802
In an inherited subclass, a parent class can be referred to with the use of the super() function. The super function returns a temporary object of the superclass that allows access to all of its methods to its child class.
The difference between the Class method and the static method is: A class method takes cls as the first parameter while a static method needs no specific parameters. A class method can access or modify the class state while a static method can't access or modify it.
The static method does not take any specific parameter. Class method can access and modify the class state. Static Method cannot access or modify the class state. The class method takes the class as parameter to know about the state of that class.
The @staticmethod is a built-in decorator that defines a static method in the class in Python. A static method doesn't receive any reference argument whether it is called by an instance of a class or by the class itself.
The short answer to
Am I calling super(type) incorrectly here or is there something I'm missing?
is: yes, you're calling it incorrectly... AND (indeed, because) there is something you're missing.
But don't feel bad; this is an extremely difficult subject.
The documentation notes that
If the second argument is omitted, the super object returned is unbound.
The use case for unbound super objects is extremely narrow and rare. See these articles by Michele Simionato for his discussion on super():
Also, he argues strongly for removing unbound super from Python 3 here.
I said you were calling it "incorrectly" (though correctness is largely meaningless without context, and a toy example doesn't give much context). Because unbound super is so rare, and possibly just flat-out unjustified, as argued by Simionato, the "correct" way to use super() is to provide the second argument.
In your case, the simplest way to make your example work is
class First(object): @staticmethod def getlist(): return ['first'] class Second(First): @staticmethod def getlist(): l = super(Second, Second).getlist() # note the 2nd argument l.append('second') return l a = Second.getlist() print a If you think it looks funny that way, you're not wrong. But I think what most people are expecting when they see super(X) (or hoping for when they try it in their own code) is what Python gives you if you do super(X, X).
156
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
