homepage

Using super() in a classmethod breaks in Python 2.2. 
Apparently, when super looks up an attribute from the
__mro__ sequence, it calls the found descriptor's
__get__ with the descriptor itself as the 'type'
argument, which breaks horribly with class methods
(which always binds to the type argument).
Presumably, the fix is to pass a NULL type argument,
which should work with the recent fixes to the
classmethod's __get__ logic. In other words, this code
in the super_getattro function Objects/typeobject.c:
tmp = f(res, su->obj, res);
should probably actually read:
tmp = f(res, su->obj, NULL);

Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627
Can you give an example of how to break it? Please also
report what your example does when you run it.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=56214
class cm1(object):
 def cmm(klass):
 print klass
 cmm = classmethod(cmm)
class cm2(cm1):
 def cmm(klass):
 super(cm2,klass).cmm()
 cmm = classmethod(cmm)
cm2.cmm()
The above code prints "<classmethod object at 0x00A9B930>",
demonstrating that super(cm2,klass).cmm is bound improperly.
 (It should print <class '__main__.cm2'>, analagous to how
calling cm1.cmm() directly prints <class '__main__.cm1'>.) 
You can more specifically verify this like so:
>>> cm1.cmm.im_self
<class '__main__.cm1'>
>>> cm2.cmm.im_self
<class '__main__.cm2'>
>>> super(cm2,cm2).cmm.im_self
<classmethod object at 0x00A9B930>
>>> 
The last item's im_self should of course be <class
'__main__.cm2'>. As I said, the problem is that
super_getattro incorrectly asks the classmethod descriptor
to bind to *itself*, rather than to a type.
Note that if you use the pure Python example version of
"super" defined in the python.org/2.2/descrintro.html
document, the above examples work correctly as long as you
use a version of Python that has the "classmethod core dump"
problem fixed. However, the builtin super() never works
correctly for classmethods, whether the "classmethod core
dump" is fixed or not.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=56214
Ugh. I just realized that my "presumable fix" is actually
wrong. I checked back on my "Python super" workaround, and
realized I modified Guido's example slightly, to call
__get__(self.__obj__,starttype), instead of
__get__(self.__obj__). This implies that the fix to
super_getattro is a little more complicated, since
super_getattro doesn't have a C variable equivalent to
starttype in the Python version of super. :(

Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656
Unless someone can come up with a obviously correct patch 
(and convince Guido that it's obviously correct) very soon, 
this isn't going to go into 2.2.1.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=56214
Patch #537536 submitted to fix this. "make test" output is
same as before the patch. If someone can give me an idea of
where/how to insert a regression test for the bug being
fixed, I'll submit a patch for that, too. Thanks.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656
Assign to Guido.
Bearing in mind that I haven't even tried to understand this 
bug, the fact that you can't come up with a test case stands 
against you... if you're just asking where to put it, stick 
it in test_descr.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=56214
I was indeed just asking where to put it, and how to
*insert* the test. Anyway, I found that most of what was
needed for the test was already in
test_descr.classmethods(), there were just a few conditions
using super() that needed adding. I've uploaded the patch
for test_descr to the patch #537536 for this bug.
By the way, the bug/patch submission guidelines were a
little unclear to me; specifically whether I was supposed to
put the patch with the bug or the bug with the patch or
upload everything to both or what. Hope my ignorance hasn't
inconvenienced anyone; this is my first time submitting
Python bugs and fixes. Also, I hadn't worked with the test
framework used in Python's test suite before, although I've
done quite a bit with unittest in my own code.

Logged In: YES 
user_id=6656
OK, you've found the right place, good.
The bug/patch guidlines are probably confusing because, 
unless you're part of the Python project I think you can't 
attach a file to a report you didn't submit. Generally I 
prefer patches to be attached to bugs, but that's just my 
opinion, I don't know what other developers think. I also 
think the whole bug/patch division is misguided, but that's 
another rant entirely.
I think you're doing fine! Now we just wait for Guido to 
stop changing nappies :)

Logged In: YES 
user_id=6380
I should probably mention that I checked in Phillip's patch
537536, closing this issue.