Why not assign __init__ to superclass's __init__?

Question

Why don't I ever see the following in Python code?

class A:
    def __init__(self, ...):
        # something important

class B(A):
    __init__ = A.__init__

It seems to work on my box with Python 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and PyPy 1.8.

I see the following a lot, instead:

class B(A):
    def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
        A.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs)

or something using super.

I like my first example better (explicit is better than implicit!) but I'm worried that it's not kosher for some reason. Is there something wrong or bad with it?

EDIT: Yep, I meant A.__init__, not self.__init__

Answer 1

Sure, it'll work (assuming you get it right, which it is not in your example), but there's no reason to do it. If you want B to call A's __init__(), just don't define __init__() on B and that'll happen automatically. That's the whole point of inheritance, after all.

The only reason you'd ever want to write an __init__() for B is if you wanted to do something when initializing a B instance in addition to what is done to initialize an A instance. In that case you'd write additional code besides just calling A.__init__(), so a simple assignment wouldn't suit there, either.

I suppose you could use this if you wanted to protect B's __init__() from being changed by a monkey-patch to A. But that seems like rather an edge case. Worse, it's unexpected behavior and a blatant denial of Python's dynamic nature.