问题描述
最初我想问,但之后我发现它已经是之前的想法...
Originally I wanted to ask this question, but then I found it was already thought of before...
谷歌搜索我发现这个。以下适用于Python 3:
Googling around I found this example of extending configparser. The following works with Python 3:
$ python3
Python 3.2.3rc2 (default, Mar 21 2012, 06:59:51)
[GCC 4.6.3] on linux2
>>> from configparser import SafeConfigParser
>>> class AmritaConfigParser(SafeConfigParser):
... def __init_(self):
... super().__init__()
...
>>> cfg = AmritaConfigParser()
但不是Python 2:
But not with Python 2:
>>> class AmritaConfigParser(SafeConfigParser):
... def __init__(self):
... super(SafeConfigParser).init()
...
>>> cfg = AmritaConfigParser()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 3, in __init__
TypeError: must be type, not classob
然后我读了一下Python New Class和Old Class样式(例如。
现在我想知道,我能做到:
Then I read a little bit on Python New Class vs. Old Class styles (e.g. here.And now I am wondering, I can do:
class MyConfigParser(ConfigParser.ConfigParser):
def Write(self, fp):
"""override the module's original write funcition"""
....
def MyWrite(self, fp):
"""Define new function and inherit all others"""
但是,我不应该调用init吗?这在Python 2中是等价的吗?
But, shouldn't I call init? Is this in Python 2 the equivalent:
class AmritaConfigParser(ConfigParser.SafeConfigParser):
#def __init__(self):
# super().__init__() # Python3 syntax, or rather, new style class syntax ...
#
# is this the equivalent of the above ?
def __init__(self):
ConfigParser.SafeConfigParser.__init__(self)
推荐答案
-
(不带参数)(以及
__ class __
):super() -> same as super(__class__, self)
因此对于新式类而言,这将是Python 2的等价物:
so that would be the Python 2 equivalent for new-style classes:
super(CurrentClass, self)
-
您可以随时使用的旧式课程:
for old-style classes you can always use:
class Classname(OldStyleParent): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): OldStyleParent.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs)
这篇关于Python扩展 - 使用super()Python 3与Python 2的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持!