ZS>> I'm thinking about implement super:: (which would have no
ZS>> noticeable performance implications), but it won't help you in
ZS>> the specific case of constructors (unless we make a special case
ZS>> for super::super(), which I think is a bit ugly).
Actually, I'm not completely convinced in necessity of super::. After all,
you always know how your superclass is called.
To quote Kristian (kk@netuse.de) (also in bug 5377, search for "super"):
"[...] is
useful to address a shadowed instance method in a superclass of a class, for example when extending
an initalizing function. Note how the name of the
superclass is mentioned multiple times in b, which is
a denormalization. Changing the name of a classes superclass
will make changed in many code locations necessary."
That´s one reason, another could be that it´s easier to adapt code from more OO driven languages which use SUPER. There are possibly more reasons.
Zeev´s comment that SUPER is as slow as THIS and taking that as one argument not to implement SUPER does not make the way into my comprehension.
I´d suppose to improve the overall OO performance :)
regards
--
o----------0-¬---------O-·---¬----o---®-----o o O ° .
| http://www.kiffen.de | pRoteçt y0ur bRaín |0 O ° ¤ °
·
0°·³°²'²³-¹'³´³°^°³~³²³°'³²²¨³²^³¹³²°²³`³º³°Þ °
o © ° . ·
| psychedelic experience | gott@kiffen.de | O ° o °
o-¬--o--0-----©-·--O-----o-----0-¤----------o 0 ° · ° . ¤ ·