Related
Sorry I could not come up with a better title.
Please consider this example:
class A:
def __init__(self, x):
self.attr = x
class B(A):
x = 1
def __init__(self):
super().__init__(x=self.x)
class C(B):
x = 2
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
c = C()
print(c.attr) # 2
This code prints 2.
This means self in B.__init__ is an instance of C, not B.
I thought that the purpose of super was to refer to the methods/attributes of the parent class. Can somebody please explain the logic behind the output not being 1? Thank you.
The purpose of super() in super().__init__() is to call the __init__() method from the parent. It doesn't change the object itself -- it's still an instance of the subclass. So anything that the subclass overrides will be visible in the instance.
If the parent method doesn't want the overridden value of x, it should use B.x rather than self.x. The whole point of accessing the attribute through self is to take advantage of overriding in subclasses.
This question already has answers here:
What does 'super' do in Python? - difference between super().__init__() and explicit superclass __init__()
(11 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
Why is super() used?
Is there a difference between using Base.__init__ and super().__init__?
class Base(object):
def __init__(self):
print "Base created"
class ChildA(Base):
def __init__(self):
Base.__init__(self)
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
super(ChildB, self).__init__()
ChildA()
ChildB()
super() lets you avoid referring to the base class explicitly, which can be nice. But the main advantage comes with multiple inheritance, where all sorts of fun stuff can happen. See the standard docs on super if you haven't already.
Note that the syntax changed in Python 3.0: you can just say super().__init__() instead of super(ChildB, self).__init__() which IMO is quite a bit nicer. The standard docs also refer to a guide to using super() which is quite explanatory.
I'm trying to understand super()
The reason we use super is so that child classes that may be using cooperative multiple inheritance will call the correct next parent class function in the Method Resolution Order (MRO).
In Python 3, we can call it like this:
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
In Python 2, we were required to call super like this with the defining class's name and self, but we'll avoid this from now on because it's redundant, slower (due to the name lookups), and more verbose (so update your Python if you haven't already!):
super(ChildB, self).__init__()
Without super, you are limited in your ability to use multiple inheritance because you hard-wire the next parent's call:
Base.__init__(self) # Avoid this.
I further explain below.
"What difference is there actually in this code?:"
class ChildA(Base):
def __init__(self):
Base.__init__(self)
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
The primary difference in this code is that in ChildB you get a layer of indirection in the __init__ with super, which uses the class in which it is defined to determine the next class's __init__ to look up in the MRO.
I illustrate this difference in an answer at the canonical question, How to use 'super' in Python?, which demonstrates dependency injection and cooperative multiple inheritance.
If Python didn't have super
Here's code that's actually closely equivalent to super (how it's implemented in C, minus some checking and fallback behavior, and translated to Python):
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
mro = type(self).mro()
check_next = mro.index(ChildB) + 1 # next after *this* class.
while check_next < len(mro):
next_class = mro[check_next]
if '__init__' in next_class.__dict__:
next_class.__init__(self)
break
check_next += 1
Written a little more like native Python:
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
mro = type(self).mro()
for next_class in mro[mro.index(ChildB) + 1:]: # slice to end
if hasattr(next_class, '__init__'):
next_class.__init__(self)
break
If we didn't have the super object, we'd have to write this manual code everywhere (or recreate it!) to ensure that we call the proper next method in the Method Resolution Order!
How does super do this in Python 3 without being told explicitly which class and instance from the method it was called from?
It gets the calling stack frame, and finds the class (implicitly stored as a local free variable, __class__, making the calling function a closure over the class) and the first argument to that function, which should be the instance or class that informs it which Method Resolution Order (MRO) to use.
Since it requires that first argument for the MRO, using super with static methods is impossible as they do not have access to the MRO of the class from which they are called.
Criticisms of other answers:
super() lets you avoid referring to the base class explicitly, which can be nice. . But the main advantage comes with multiple inheritance, where all sorts of fun stuff can happen. See the standard docs on super if you haven't already.
It's rather hand-wavey and doesn't tell us much, but the point of super is not to avoid writing the parent class. The point is to ensure that the next method in line in the method resolution order (MRO) is called. This becomes important in multiple inheritance.
I'll explain here.
class Base(object):
def __init__(self):
print("Base init'ed")
class ChildA(Base):
def __init__(self):
print("ChildA init'ed")
Base.__init__(self)
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
print("ChildB init'ed")
super().__init__()
And let's create a dependency that we want to be called after the Child:
class UserDependency(Base):
def __init__(self):
print("UserDependency init'ed")
super().__init__()
Now remember, ChildB uses super, ChildA does not:
class UserA(ChildA, UserDependency):
def __init__(self):
print("UserA init'ed")
super().__init__()
class UserB(ChildB, UserDependency):
def __init__(self):
print("UserB init'ed")
super().__init__()
And UserA does not call the UserDependency method:
>>> UserA()
UserA init'ed
ChildA init'ed
Base init'ed
<__main__.UserA object at 0x0000000003403BA8>
But UserB does in-fact call UserDependency because ChildB invokes super:
>>> UserB()
UserB init'ed
ChildB init'ed
UserDependency init'ed
Base init'ed
<__main__.UserB object at 0x0000000003403438>
Criticism for another answer
In no circumstance should you do the following, which another answer suggests, as you'll definitely get errors when you subclass ChildB:
super(self.__class__, self).__init__() # DON'T DO THIS! EVER.
(That answer is not clever or particularly interesting, but in spite of direct criticism in the comments and over 17 downvotes, the answerer persisted in suggesting it until a kind editor fixed his problem.)
Explanation: Using self.__class__ as a substitute for the class name in super() will lead to recursion. super lets us look up the next parent in the MRO (see the first section of this answer) for child classes. If you tell super we're in the child instance's method, it will then lookup the next method in line (probably this one) resulting in recursion, probably causing a logical failure (in the answerer's example, it does) or a RuntimeError when the recursion depth is exceeded.
>>> class Polygon(object):
... def __init__(self, id):
... self.id = id
...
>>> class Rectangle(Polygon):
... def __init__(self, id, width, height):
... super(self.__class__, self).__init__(id)
... self.shape = (width, height)
...
>>> class Square(Rectangle):
... pass
...
>>> Square('a', 10, 10)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 3, in __init__
TypeError: __init__() missing 2 required positional arguments: 'width' and 'height'
Python 3's new super() calling method with no arguments fortunately allows us to sidestep this issue.
It's been noted that in Python 3.0+ you can use
super().__init__()
to make your call, which is concise and does not require you to reference the parent OR class names explicitly, which can be handy. I just want to add that for Python 2.7 or under, some people implement a name-insensitive behaviour by writing self.__class__ instead of the class name, i.e.
super(self.__class__, self).__init__() # DON'T DO THIS!
HOWEVER, this breaks calls to super for any classes that inherit from your class, where self.__class__ could return a child class. For example:
class Polygon(object):
def __init__(self, id):
self.id = id
class Rectangle(Polygon):
def __init__(self, id, width, height):
super(self.__class__, self).__init__(id)
self.shape = (width, height)
class Square(Rectangle):
pass
Here I have a class Square, which is a sub-class of Rectangle. Say I don't want to write a separate constructor for Square because the constructor for Rectangle is good enough, but for whatever reason I want to implement a Square so I can reimplement some other method.
When I create a Square using mSquare = Square('a', 10,10), Python calls the constructor for Rectangle because I haven't given Square its own constructor. However, in the constructor for Rectangle, the call super(self.__class__,self) is going to return the superclass of mSquare, so it calls the constructor for Rectangle again. This is how the infinite loop happens, as was mentioned by #S_C. In this case, when I run super(...).__init__() I am calling the constructor for Rectangle but since I give it no arguments, I will get an error.
Super has no side effects
Base = ChildB
Base()
works as expected
Base = ChildA
Base()
gets into infinite recursion.
Just a heads up... with Python 2.7, and I believe ever since super() was introduced in version 2.2, you can only call super() if one of the parents inherit from a class that eventually inherits object (new-style classes).
Personally, as for python 2.7 code, I'm going to continue using BaseClassName.__init__(self, args) until I actually get the advantage of using super().
There isn't, really. super() looks at the next class in the MRO (method resolution order, accessed with cls.__mro__) to call the methods. Just calling the base __init__ calls the base __init__. As it happens, the MRO has exactly one item-- the base. So you're really doing the exact same thing, but in a nicer way with super() (particularly if you get into multiple inheritance later).
The main difference is that ChildA.__init__ will unconditionally call Base.__init__ whereas ChildB.__init__ will call __init__ in whatever class happens to be ChildB ancestor in self's line of ancestors
(which may differ from what you expect).
If you add a ClassC that uses multiple inheritance:
class Mixin(Base):
def __init__(self):
print "Mixin stuff"
super(Mixin, self).__init__()
class ChildC(ChildB, Mixin): # Mixin is now between ChildB and Base
pass
ChildC()
help(ChildC) # shows that the Method Resolution Order is ChildC->ChildB->Mixin->Base
then Base is no longer the parent of ChildB for ChildC instances. Now super(ChildB, self) will point to Mixin if self is a ChildC instance.
You have inserted Mixin in between ChildB and Base. And you can take advantage of it with super()
So if you are designed your classes so that they can be used in a Cooperative Multiple Inheritance scenario, you use super because you don't really know who is going to be the ancestor at runtime.
The super considered super post and pycon 2015 accompanying video explain this pretty well.
What's the difference between:
class Child(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
super(Child, self).__init__()
and:
class Child(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self)
I've seen super being used quite a lot in classes with only single inheritance. I can see why you'd use it in multiple inheritance but am unclear as to what the advantages are of using it in this kind of situation.
What's the difference?
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self)
means to call SomeBaseClass's __init__. while
super().__init__()
means to call a bound __init__ from the parent class that follows SomeBaseClass's child class (the one that defines this method) in the instance's Method Resolution Order (MRO).
If the instance is a subclass of this child class, there may be a different parent that comes next in the MRO.
Explained simply
When you write a class, you want other classes to be able to use it. super() makes it easier for other classes to use the class you're writing.
As Bob Martin says, a good architecture allows you to postpone decision making as long as possible.
super() can enable that sort of architecture.
When another class subclasses the class you wrote, it could also be inheriting from other classes. And those classes could have an __init__ that comes after this __init__ based on the ordering of the classes for method resolution.
Without super you would likely hard-code the parent of the class you're writing (like the example does). This would mean that you would not call the next __init__ in the MRO, and you would thus not get to reuse the code in it.
If you're writing your own code for personal use, you may not care about this distinction. But if you want others to use your code, using super is one thing that allows greater flexibility for users of the code.
Python 2 versus 3
This works in Python 2 and 3:
super(Child, self).__init__()
This only works in Python 3:
super().__init__()
It works with no arguments by moving up in the stack frame and getting the first argument to the method (usually self for an instance method or cls for a class method - but could be other names) and finding the class (e.g. Child) in the free variables (it is looked up with the name __class__ as a free closure variable in the method).
I used to prefer to demonstrate the cross-compatible way of using super, but now that Python 2 is largely deprecated, I will demonstrate the Python 3 way of doing things, that is, calling super with no arguments.
Indirection with Forward Compatibility
What does it give you? For single inheritance, the examples from the question are practically identical from a static analysis point of view. However, using super gives you a layer of indirection with forward compatibility.
Forward compatibility is very important to seasoned developers. You want your code to keep working with minimal changes as you change it. When you look at your revision history, you want to see precisely what changed when.
You may start off with single inheritance, but if you decide to add another base class, you only have to change the line with the bases - if the bases change in a class you inherit from (say a mixin is added) you'd change nothing in this class.
In Python 2, getting the arguments to super and the correct method arguments right can be a little confusing, so I suggest using the Python 3 only method of calling it.
If you know you're using super correctly with single inheritance, that makes debugging less difficult going forward.
Dependency Injection
Other people can use your code and inject parents into the method resolution:
class SomeBaseClass(object):
def __init__(self):
print('SomeBaseClass.__init__(self) called')
class UnsuperChild(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
print('UnsuperChild.__init__(self) called')
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self)
class SuperChild(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
print('SuperChild.__init__(self) called')
super().__init__()
Say you add another class to your object, and want to inject a class between Foo and Bar (for testing or some other reason):
class InjectMe(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
print('InjectMe.__init__(self) called')
super().__init__()
class UnsuperInjector(UnsuperChild, InjectMe): pass
class SuperInjector(SuperChild, InjectMe): pass
Using the un-super child fails to inject the dependency because the child you're using has hard-coded the method to be called after its own:
>>> o = UnsuperInjector()
UnsuperChild.__init__(self) called
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self) called
However, the class with the child that uses super can correctly inject the dependency:
>>> o2 = SuperInjector()
SuperChild.__init__(self) called
InjectMe.__init__(self) called
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self) called
Addressing a comment
Why in the world would this be useful?
Python linearizes a complicated inheritance tree via the C3 linearization algorithm to create a Method Resolution Order (MRO).
We want methods to be looked up in that order.
For a method defined in a parent to find the next one in that order without super, it would have to
get the mro from the instance's type
look for the type that defines the method
find the next type with the method
bind that method and call it with the expected arguments
The UnsuperChild should not have access to InjectMe. Why isn't the conclusion "Always avoid using super"? What am I missing here?
The UnsuperChild does not have access to InjectMe. It is the UnsuperInjector that has access to InjectMe - and yet cannot call that class's method from the method it inherits from UnsuperChild.
Both Child classes intend to call a method by the same name that comes next in the MRO, which might be another class it was not aware of when it was created.
The one without super hard-codes its parent's method - thus is has restricted the behavior of its method, and subclasses cannot inject functionality in the call chain.
The one with super has greater flexibility. The call chain for the methods can be intercepted and functionality injected.
You may not need that functionality, but subclassers of your code may.
Conclusion
Always use super to reference the parent class instead of hard-coding it.
What you intend is to reference the parent class that is next-in-line, not specifically the one you see the child inheriting from.
Not using super can put unnecessary constraints on users of your code.
The benefits of super() in single-inheritance are minimal -- mostly, you don't have to hard-code the name of the base class into every method that uses its parent methods.
However, it's almost impossible to use multiple-inheritance without super(). This includes common idioms like mixins, interfaces, abstract classes, etc. This extends to code that later extends yours. If somebody later wanted to write a class that extended Child and a mixin, their code would not work properly.
I had played a bit with super(), and had recognized that we can change calling order.
For example, we have next hierarchy structure:
A
/ \
B C
\ /
D
In this case MRO of D will be (only for Python 3):
In [26]: D.__mro__
Out[26]: (__main__.D, __main__.B, __main__.C, __main__.A, object)
Let's create a class where super() calls after method execution.
In [23]: class A(object): # or with Python 3 can define class A:
...: def __init__(self):
...: print("I'm from A")
...:
...: class B(A):
...: def __init__(self):
...: print("I'm from B")
...: super().__init__()
...:
...: class C(A):
...: def __init__(self):
...: print("I'm from C")
...: super().__init__()
...:
...: class D(B, C):
...: def __init__(self):
...: print("I'm from D")
...: super().__init__()
...: d = D()
...:
I'm from D
I'm from B
I'm from C
I'm from A
A
/ ⇖
B ⇒ C
⇖ /
D
So we can see that resolution order is same as in MRO. But when we call super() in the beginning of the method:
In [21]: class A(object): # or class A:
...: def __init__(self):
...: print("I'm from A")
...:
...: class B(A):
...: def __init__(self):
...: super().__init__() # or super(B, self).__init_()
...: print("I'm from B")
...:
...: class C(A):
...: def __init__(self):
...: super().__init__()
...: print("I'm from C")
...:
...: class D(B, C):
...: def __init__(self):
...: super().__init__()
...: print("I'm from D")
...: d = D()
...:
I'm from A
I'm from C
I'm from B
I'm from D
We have a different order it is reversed a order of the MRO tuple.
A
/ ⇘
B ⇐ C
⇘ /
D
For additional reading I would recommend next answers:
C3 linearization example with super (a large hierarchy)
Important behavior changes between old and new style classes
The Inside Story on New-Style Classes
Doesn't all of this assume that the base class is a new-style class?
class A:
def __init__(self):
print("A.__init__()")
class B(A):
def __init__(self):
print("B.__init__()")
super(B, self).__init__()
Will not work in Python 2. class A must be new-style, i.e: class A(object)
When calling super() to resolve to a parent's version of a classmethod, instance method, or staticmethod, we want to pass the current class whose scope we are in as the first argument, to indicate which parent's scope we're trying to resolve to, and as a second argument the object of interest to indicate which object we're trying to apply that scope to.
Consider a class hierarchy A, B, and C where each class is the parent of the one following it, and a, b, and c respective instances of each.
super(B, b)
# resolves to the scope of B's parent i.e. A
# and applies that scope to b, as if b was an instance of A
super(C, c)
# resolves to the scope of C's parent i.e. B
# and applies that scope to c
super(B, c)
# resolves to the scope of B's parent i.e. A
# and applies that scope to c
Using super with a staticmethod
e.g. using super() from within the __new__() method
class A(object):
def __new__(cls, *a, **kw):
# ...
# whatever you want to specialize or override here
# ...
return super(A, cls).__new__(cls, *a, **kw)
Explanation:
1- even though it's usual for __new__() to take as its first param a reference to the calling class, it is not implemented in Python as a classmethod, but rather a staticmethod. That is, a reference to a class has to be passed explicitly as the first argument when calling __new__() directly:
# if you defined this
class A(object):
def __new__(cls):
pass
# calling this would raise a TypeError due to the missing argument
A.__new__()
# whereas this would be fine
A.__new__(A)
2- when calling super() to get to the parent class we pass the child class A as its first argument, then we pass a reference to the object of interest, in this case it's the class reference that was passed when A.__new__(cls) was called. In most cases it also happens to be a reference to the child class. In some situations it might not be, for instance in the case of multiple generation inheritances.
super(A, cls)
3- since as a general rule __new__() is a staticmethod, super(A, cls).__new__ will also return a staticmethod and needs to be supplied all arguments explicitly, including the reference to the object of insterest, in this case cls.
super(A, cls).__new__(cls, *a, **kw)
4- doing the same thing without super
class A(object):
def __new__(cls, *a, **kw):
# ...
# whatever you want to specialize or override here
# ...
return object.__new__(cls, *a, **kw)
Using super with an instance method
e.g. using super() from within __init__()
class A(object):
def __init__(self, *a, **kw):
# ...
# you make some changes here
# ...
super(A, self).__init__(*a, **kw)
Explanation:
1- __init__ is an instance method, meaning that it takes as its first argument a reference to an instance. When called directly from the instance, the reference is passed implicitly, that is you don't need to specify it:
# you try calling `__init__()` from the class without specifying an instance
# and a TypeError is raised due to the expected but missing reference
A.__init__() # TypeError ...
# you create an instance
a = A()
# you call `__init__()` from that instance and it works
a.__init__()
# you can also call `__init__()` with the class and explicitly pass the instance
A.__init__(a)
2- when calling super() within __init__() we pass the child class as the first argument and the object of interest as a second argument, which in general is a reference to an instance of the child class.
super(A, self)
3- The call super(A, self) returns a proxy that will resolve the scope and apply it to self as if it's now an instance of the parent class. Let's call that proxy s. Since __init__() is an instance method the call s.__init__(...) will implicitly pass a reference of self as the first argument to the parent's __init__().
4- to do the same without super we need to pass a reference to an instance explicitly to the parent's version of __init__().
class A(object):
def __init__(self, *a, **kw):
# ...
# you make some changes here
# ...
object.__init__(self, *a, **kw)
Using super with a classmethod
class A(object):
#classmethod
def alternate_constructor(cls, *a, **kw):
print "A.alternate_constructor called"
return cls(*a, **kw)
class B(A):
#classmethod
def alternate_constructor(cls, *a, **kw):
# ...
# whatever you want to specialize or override here
# ...
print "B.alternate_constructor called"
return super(B, cls).alternate_constructor(*a, **kw)
Explanation:
1- A classmethod can be called from the class directly and takes as its first parameter a reference to the class.
# calling directly from the class is fine,
# a reference to the class is passed implicitly
a = A.alternate_constructor()
b = B.alternate_constructor()
2- when calling super() within a classmethod to resolve to its parent's version of it, we want to pass the current child class as the first argument to indicate which parent's scope we're trying to resolve to, and the object of interest as the second argument to indicate which object we want to apply that scope to, which in general is a reference to the child class itself or one of its subclasses.
super(B, cls_or_subcls)
3- The call super(B, cls) resolves to the scope of A and applies it to cls. Since alternate_constructor() is a classmethod the call super(B, cls).alternate_constructor(...) will implicitly pass a reference of cls as the first argument to A's version of alternate_constructor()
super(B, cls).alternate_constructor()
4- to do the same without using super() you would need to get a reference to the unbound version of A.alternate_constructor() (i.e. the explicit version of the function). Simply doing this would not work:
class B(A):
#classmethod
def alternate_constructor(cls, *a, **kw):
# ...
# whatever you want to specialize or override here
# ...
print "B.alternate_constructor called"
return A.alternate_constructor(cls, *a, **kw)
The above would not work because the A.alternate_constructor() method takes an implicit reference to A as its first argument. The cls being passed here would be its second argument.
class B(A):
#classmethod
def alternate_constructor(cls, *a, **kw):
# ...
# whatever you want to specialize or override here
# ...
print "B.alternate_constructor called"
# first we get a reference to the unbound
# `A.alternate_constructor` function
unbound_func = A.alternate_constructor.im_func
# now we call it and pass our own `cls` as its first argument
return unbound_func(cls, *a, **kw)
Super() in a nutshell
Every Python instance has a class that created it.
Every class in Python has a chain of ancestor classes.
A method using super() delegates work to the next ancestor in the chain for the instance's class.
Example
This small example covers all the interesting cases:
class A:
def m(self):
print('A')
class B(A):
def m(self):
print('B start')
super().m()
print('B end')
class C(A):
def m(self):
print('C start')
super().m()
print('C end')
class D(B, C):
def m(self):
print('D start')
super().m()
print('D end')
The exact order of calls is determined by the instance the method is called from:
>>> a = A()
>>> b = B()
>>> c = C()
>>> d = D()
For instance a, there is no super call:
>>> a.m()
A
For instance b, the ancestor chain is B -> A -> object:
>>> type(b).__mro__
(<class '__main__.B'>, <class '__main__.A'>, <class 'object'>)
>>> b.m()
B start
A
B end
For instance c, the ancestor chain is C -> A -> object:
>>> type(c).__mro__
(<class '__main__.C'>, <class '__main__.A'>, <class 'object'>)
>>> c.m()
C start
A
C end
For instance d, the ancestor chain is more interesting D -> B -> C -> A -> object (mro stands for method resolution order) :
>>> type(d).__mro__
(<class '__main__.D'>, <class '__main__.B'>, <class '__main__.C'>, <class '__main__.A'>, <class 'object'>)
>>> d.m()
D start
B start
C start
A
C end
B end
D end
More information
Having answered the question of "What does super do in Python?", the next question is how to use it effectively. See this step-by-step tutorial or this 45 minute video.
Many great answers, but for visual learners:
Firstly lets explore with arguments to super, and then without.
Imagine theres an instance jack created from the class Jack, who has the inheritance chain as shown in green in the picture. Calling:
super(Jack, jack).method(...)
will use the MRO (Method Resolution Order) of jack (its inheritance tree in a certain order), and will start searching from Jack. Why can one provide a parent class? Well if we start searching from the instance jack, it would find the instance method, the whole point is to find its parents method.
If one does not supply arguments to super, its like the first argument passed in is the class of self, and the second argument passed in is self. These are auto-calculated for you in Python3.
However say we dont want to use Jack's method, instead of passing in Jack, we could of passed in Jen to start searching upwards for the method from Jen.
It searches one layer at a time (width not depth), e.g. if Adam and Sue both have the required method, the one from Sue will be found first.
If Cain and Sue both had the required method, Cain's method would be called first.
This corresponds in code to:
Class Jen(Cain, Sue):
MRO is from left to right.
In the case of multiple inheritance, you normally want to call the initializers of both parents, not just the first. Instead of always using the base class, super() finds the class that is next in Method Resolution Order (MRO), and returns the current object as an instance of that class. For example:
class Base(object):
def __init__(self):
print("initializing Base")
class ChildA(Base):
def __init__(self):
print("initializing ChildA")
Base.__init__(self)
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
print("initializing ChildB")
super().__init__()
class Grandchild(ChildA, ChildB):
def __init__(self):
print("initializing Grandchild")
super().__init__()
Grandchild()
results in
initializing Grandchild
initializing ChildA
initializing Base
Replacing Base.__init__(self) with super().__init__() results in
initializing Grandchild
initializing ChildA
initializing ChildB
initializing Base
as desired.
some great answers here, but they do not tackle how to use super() in the case where different classes in the hierarchy have different signatures ... especially in the case of __init__
to answer that part and to be able to effectively use super() i'd suggest reading my answer super() and changing the signature of cooperative methods.
here's just the solution to this scenario:
the top-level classes in your hierarchy must inherit from a custom class like SuperObject:
if classes can take differing arguments, always pass all arguments you received on to the super function as keyword arguments, and, always accept **kwargs.
class SuperObject:
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
print('SuperObject')
mro = type(self).__mro__
assert mro[-1] is object
if mro[-2] is not SuperObject:
raise TypeError(
'all top-level classes in this hierarchy must inherit from SuperObject',
'the last class in the MRO should be SuperObject',
f'mro={[cls.__name__ for cls in mro]}'
)
# super().__init__ is guaranteed to be object.__init__
init = super().__init__
init()
example usage:
class A(SuperObject):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
print("A")
super(A, self).__init__(**kwargs)
class B(SuperObject):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
print("B")
super(B, self).__init__(**kwargs)
class C(A):
def __init__(self, age, **kwargs):
print("C",f"age={age}")
super(C, self).__init__(age=age, **kwargs)
class D(B):
def __init__(self, name, **kwargs):
print("D", f"name={name}")
super(D, self).__init__(name=name, **kwargs)
class E(C,D):
def __init__(self, name, age, *args, **kwargs):
print( "E", f"name={name}", f"age={age}")
super(E, self).__init__(name=name, age=age, *args, **kwargs)
E(name='python', age=28)
output:
E name=python age=28
C age=28
A
D name=python
B
SuperObject
Consider the following code:
class X():
def __init__(self):
print("X")
class Y(X):
def __init__(self):
# X.__init__(self)
super(Y, self).__init__()
print("Y")
class P(X):
def __init__(self):
super(P, self).__init__()
print("P")
class Q(Y, P):
def __init__(self):
super(Q, self).__init__()
print("Q")
Q()
If change constructor of Y to X.__init__, you will get:
X
Y
Q
But using super(Y, self).__init__(), you will get:
X
P
Y
Q
And P or Q may even be involved from another file which you don't know when you writing X and Y. So, basically, you won't know what super(Child, self) will reference to when you are writing class Y(X), even the signature of Y is as simple as Y(X). That's why super could be a better choice.
class Child(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self)
This is fairly easy to understand.
class Child(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
super(Child, self).__init__()
Ok, what happens now if you use super(Child,self)?
When a Child instance is created, its MRO(Method Resolution Order) is in the order of (Child, SomeBaseClass, object) based on the inheritance. (assume SomeBaseClass doesn't have other parents except for the default object)
By passing Child, self, super searches in the MRO of the self instance, and return the proxy object next of Child, in this case it's SomeBaseClass, this object then invokes the __init__ method of SomeBaseClass. In other word, if it's super(SomeBaseClass,self), the proxy object that super returns would be object
For multi inheritance, the MRO could contain many classes, so basically super lets you decide where you want to start searching in the MRO.
What's the difference between:
class Child(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
super(Child, self).__init__()
and:
class Child(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self)
I've seen super being used quite a lot in classes with only single inheritance. I can see why you'd use it in multiple inheritance but am unclear as to what the advantages are of using it in this kind of situation.
What's the difference?
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self)
means to call SomeBaseClass's __init__. while
super().__init__()
means to call a bound __init__ from the parent class that follows SomeBaseClass's child class (the one that defines this method) in the instance's Method Resolution Order (MRO).
If the instance is a subclass of this child class, there may be a different parent that comes next in the MRO.
Explained simply
When you write a class, you want other classes to be able to use it. super() makes it easier for other classes to use the class you're writing.
As Bob Martin says, a good architecture allows you to postpone decision making as long as possible.
super() can enable that sort of architecture.
When another class subclasses the class you wrote, it could also be inheriting from other classes. And those classes could have an __init__ that comes after this __init__ based on the ordering of the classes for method resolution.
Without super you would likely hard-code the parent of the class you're writing (like the example does). This would mean that you would not call the next __init__ in the MRO, and you would thus not get to reuse the code in it.
If you're writing your own code for personal use, you may not care about this distinction. But if you want others to use your code, using super is one thing that allows greater flexibility for users of the code.
Python 2 versus 3
This works in Python 2 and 3:
super(Child, self).__init__()
This only works in Python 3:
super().__init__()
It works with no arguments by moving up in the stack frame and getting the first argument to the method (usually self for an instance method or cls for a class method - but could be other names) and finding the class (e.g. Child) in the free variables (it is looked up with the name __class__ as a free closure variable in the method).
I used to prefer to demonstrate the cross-compatible way of using super, but now that Python 2 is largely deprecated, I will demonstrate the Python 3 way of doing things, that is, calling super with no arguments.
Indirection with Forward Compatibility
What does it give you? For single inheritance, the examples from the question are practically identical from a static analysis point of view. However, using super gives you a layer of indirection with forward compatibility.
Forward compatibility is very important to seasoned developers. You want your code to keep working with minimal changes as you change it. When you look at your revision history, you want to see precisely what changed when.
You may start off with single inheritance, but if you decide to add another base class, you only have to change the line with the bases - if the bases change in a class you inherit from (say a mixin is added) you'd change nothing in this class.
In Python 2, getting the arguments to super and the correct method arguments right can be a little confusing, so I suggest using the Python 3 only method of calling it.
If you know you're using super correctly with single inheritance, that makes debugging less difficult going forward.
Dependency Injection
Other people can use your code and inject parents into the method resolution:
class SomeBaseClass(object):
def __init__(self):
print('SomeBaseClass.__init__(self) called')
class UnsuperChild(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
print('UnsuperChild.__init__(self) called')
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self)
class SuperChild(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
print('SuperChild.__init__(self) called')
super().__init__()
Say you add another class to your object, and want to inject a class between Foo and Bar (for testing or some other reason):
class InjectMe(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
print('InjectMe.__init__(self) called')
super().__init__()
class UnsuperInjector(UnsuperChild, InjectMe): pass
class SuperInjector(SuperChild, InjectMe): pass
Using the un-super child fails to inject the dependency because the child you're using has hard-coded the method to be called after its own:
>>> o = UnsuperInjector()
UnsuperChild.__init__(self) called
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self) called
However, the class with the child that uses super can correctly inject the dependency:
>>> o2 = SuperInjector()
SuperChild.__init__(self) called
InjectMe.__init__(self) called
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self) called
Addressing a comment
Why in the world would this be useful?
Python linearizes a complicated inheritance tree via the C3 linearization algorithm to create a Method Resolution Order (MRO).
We want methods to be looked up in that order.
For a method defined in a parent to find the next one in that order without super, it would have to
get the mro from the instance's type
look for the type that defines the method
find the next type with the method
bind that method and call it with the expected arguments
The UnsuperChild should not have access to InjectMe. Why isn't the conclusion "Always avoid using super"? What am I missing here?
The UnsuperChild does not have access to InjectMe. It is the UnsuperInjector that has access to InjectMe - and yet cannot call that class's method from the method it inherits from UnsuperChild.
Both Child classes intend to call a method by the same name that comes next in the MRO, which might be another class it was not aware of when it was created.
The one without super hard-codes its parent's method - thus is has restricted the behavior of its method, and subclasses cannot inject functionality in the call chain.
The one with super has greater flexibility. The call chain for the methods can be intercepted and functionality injected.
You may not need that functionality, but subclassers of your code may.
Conclusion
Always use super to reference the parent class instead of hard-coding it.
What you intend is to reference the parent class that is next-in-line, not specifically the one you see the child inheriting from.
Not using super can put unnecessary constraints on users of your code.
The benefits of super() in single-inheritance are minimal -- mostly, you don't have to hard-code the name of the base class into every method that uses its parent methods.
However, it's almost impossible to use multiple-inheritance without super(). This includes common idioms like mixins, interfaces, abstract classes, etc. This extends to code that later extends yours. If somebody later wanted to write a class that extended Child and a mixin, their code would not work properly.
I had played a bit with super(), and had recognized that we can change calling order.
For example, we have next hierarchy structure:
A
/ \
B C
\ /
D
In this case MRO of D will be (only for Python 3):
In [26]: D.__mro__
Out[26]: (__main__.D, __main__.B, __main__.C, __main__.A, object)
Let's create a class where super() calls after method execution.
In [23]: class A(object): # or with Python 3 can define class A:
...: def __init__(self):
...: print("I'm from A")
...:
...: class B(A):
...: def __init__(self):
...: print("I'm from B")
...: super().__init__()
...:
...: class C(A):
...: def __init__(self):
...: print("I'm from C")
...: super().__init__()
...:
...: class D(B, C):
...: def __init__(self):
...: print("I'm from D")
...: super().__init__()
...: d = D()
...:
I'm from D
I'm from B
I'm from C
I'm from A
A
/ ⇖
B ⇒ C
⇖ /
D
So we can see that resolution order is same as in MRO. But when we call super() in the beginning of the method:
In [21]: class A(object): # or class A:
...: def __init__(self):
...: print("I'm from A")
...:
...: class B(A):
...: def __init__(self):
...: super().__init__() # or super(B, self).__init_()
...: print("I'm from B")
...:
...: class C(A):
...: def __init__(self):
...: super().__init__()
...: print("I'm from C")
...:
...: class D(B, C):
...: def __init__(self):
...: super().__init__()
...: print("I'm from D")
...: d = D()
...:
I'm from A
I'm from C
I'm from B
I'm from D
We have a different order it is reversed a order of the MRO tuple.
A
/ ⇘
B ⇐ C
⇘ /
D
For additional reading I would recommend next answers:
C3 linearization example with super (a large hierarchy)
Important behavior changes between old and new style classes
The Inside Story on New-Style Classes
Doesn't all of this assume that the base class is a new-style class?
class A:
def __init__(self):
print("A.__init__()")
class B(A):
def __init__(self):
print("B.__init__()")
super(B, self).__init__()
Will not work in Python 2. class A must be new-style, i.e: class A(object)
When calling super() to resolve to a parent's version of a classmethod, instance method, or staticmethod, we want to pass the current class whose scope we are in as the first argument, to indicate which parent's scope we're trying to resolve to, and as a second argument the object of interest to indicate which object we're trying to apply that scope to.
Consider a class hierarchy A, B, and C where each class is the parent of the one following it, and a, b, and c respective instances of each.
super(B, b)
# resolves to the scope of B's parent i.e. A
# and applies that scope to b, as if b was an instance of A
super(C, c)
# resolves to the scope of C's parent i.e. B
# and applies that scope to c
super(B, c)
# resolves to the scope of B's parent i.e. A
# and applies that scope to c
Using super with a staticmethod
e.g. using super() from within the __new__() method
class A(object):
def __new__(cls, *a, **kw):
# ...
# whatever you want to specialize or override here
# ...
return super(A, cls).__new__(cls, *a, **kw)
Explanation:
1- even though it's usual for __new__() to take as its first param a reference to the calling class, it is not implemented in Python as a classmethod, but rather a staticmethod. That is, a reference to a class has to be passed explicitly as the first argument when calling __new__() directly:
# if you defined this
class A(object):
def __new__(cls):
pass
# calling this would raise a TypeError due to the missing argument
A.__new__()
# whereas this would be fine
A.__new__(A)
2- when calling super() to get to the parent class we pass the child class A as its first argument, then we pass a reference to the object of interest, in this case it's the class reference that was passed when A.__new__(cls) was called. In most cases it also happens to be a reference to the child class. In some situations it might not be, for instance in the case of multiple generation inheritances.
super(A, cls)
3- since as a general rule __new__() is a staticmethod, super(A, cls).__new__ will also return a staticmethod and needs to be supplied all arguments explicitly, including the reference to the object of insterest, in this case cls.
super(A, cls).__new__(cls, *a, **kw)
4- doing the same thing without super
class A(object):
def __new__(cls, *a, **kw):
# ...
# whatever you want to specialize or override here
# ...
return object.__new__(cls, *a, **kw)
Using super with an instance method
e.g. using super() from within __init__()
class A(object):
def __init__(self, *a, **kw):
# ...
# you make some changes here
# ...
super(A, self).__init__(*a, **kw)
Explanation:
1- __init__ is an instance method, meaning that it takes as its first argument a reference to an instance. When called directly from the instance, the reference is passed implicitly, that is you don't need to specify it:
# you try calling `__init__()` from the class without specifying an instance
# and a TypeError is raised due to the expected but missing reference
A.__init__() # TypeError ...
# you create an instance
a = A()
# you call `__init__()` from that instance and it works
a.__init__()
# you can also call `__init__()` with the class and explicitly pass the instance
A.__init__(a)
2- when calling super() within __init__() we pass the child class as the first argument and the object of interest as a second argument, which in general is a reference to an instance of the child class.
super(A, self)
3- The call super(A, self) returns a proxy that will resolve the scope and apply it to self as if it's now an instance of the parent class. Let's call that proxy s. Since __init__() is an instance method the call s.__init__(...) will implicitly pass a reference of self as the first argument to the parent's __init__().
4- to do the same without super we need to pass a reference to an instance explicitly to the parent's version of __init__().
class A(object):
def __init__(self, *a, **kw):
# ...
# you make some changes here
# ...
object.__init__(self, *a, **kw)
Using super with a classmethod
class A(object):
#classmethod
def alternate_constructor(cls, *a, **kw):
print "A.alternate_constructor called"
return cls(*a, **kw)
class B(A):
#classmethod
def alternate_constructor(cls, *a, **kw):
# ...
# whatever you want to specialize or override here
# ...
print "B.alternate_constructor called"
return super(B, cls).alternate_constructor(*a, **kw)
Explanation:
1- A classmethod can be called from the class directly and takes as its first parameter a reference to the class.
# calling directly from the class is fine,
# a reference to the class is passed implicitly
a = A.alternate_constructor()
b = B.alternate_constructor()
2- when calling super() within a classmethod to resolve to its parent's version of it, we want to pass the current child class as the first argument to indicate which parent's scope we're trying to resolve to, and the object of interest as the second argument to indicate which object we want to apply that scope to, which in general is a reference to the child class itself or one of its subclasses.
super(B, cls_or_subcls)
3- The call super(B, cls) resolves to the scope of A and applies it to cls. Since alternate_constructor() is a classmethod the call super(B, cls).alternate_constructor(...) will implicitly pass a reference of cls as the first argument to A's version of alternate_constructor()
super(B, cls).alternate_constructor()
4- to do the same without using super() you would need to get a reference to the unbound version of A.alternate_constructor() (i.e. the explicit version of the function). Simply doing this would not work:
class B(A):
#classmethod
def alternate_constructor(cls, *a, **kw):
# ...
# whatever you want to specialize or override here
# ...
print "B.alternate_constructor called"
return A.alternate_constructor(cls, *a, **kw)
The above would not work because the A.alternate_constructor() method takes an implicit reference to A as its first argument. The cls being passed here would be its second argument.
class B(A):
#classmethod
def alternate_constructor(cls, *a, **kw):
# ...
# whatever you want to specialize or override here
# ...
print "B.alternate_constructor called"
# first we get a reference to the unbound
# `A.alternate_constructor` function
unbound_func = A.alternate_constructor.im_func
# now we call it and pass our own `cls` as its first argument
return unbound_func(cls, *a, **kw)
Super() in a nutshell
Every Python instance has a class that created it.
Every class in Python has a chain of ancestor classes.
A method using super() delegates work to the next ancestor in the chain for the instance's class.
Example
This small example covers all the interesting cases:
class A:
def m(self):
print('A')
class B(A):
def m(self):
print('B start')
super().m()
print('B end')
class C(A):
def m(self):
print('C start')
super().m()
print('C end')
class D(B, C):
def m(self):
print('D start')
super().m()
print('D end')
The exact order of calls is determined by the instance the method is called from:
>>> a = A()
>>> b = B()
>>> c = C()
>>> d = D()
For instance a, there is no super call:
>>> a.m()
A
For instance b, the ancestor chain is B -> A -> object:
>>> type(b).__mro__
(<class '__main__.B'>, <class '__main__.A'>, <class 'object'>)
>>> b.m()
B start
A
B end
For instance c, the ancestor chain is C -> A -> object:
>>> type(c).__mro__
(<class '__main__.C'>, <class '__main__.A'>, <class 'object'>)
>>> c.m()
C start
A
C end
For instance d, the ancestor chain is more interesting D -> B -> C -> A -> object (mro stands for method resolution order) :
>>> type(d).__mro__
(<class '__main__.D'>, <class '__main__.B'>, <class '__main__.C'>, <class '__main__.A'>, <class 'object'>)
>>> d.m()
D start
B start
C start
A
C end
B end
D end
More information
Having answered the question of "What does super do in Python?", the next question is how to use it effectively. See this step-by-step tutorial or this 45 minute video.
Many great answers, but for visual learners:
Firstly lets explore with arguments to super, and then without.
Imagine theres an instance jack created from the class Jack, who has the inheritance chain as shown in green in the picture. Calling:
super(Jack, jack).method(...)
will use the MRO (Method Resolution Order) of jack (its inheritance tree in a certain order), and will start searching from Jack. Why can one provide a parent class? Well if we start searching from the instance jack, it would find the instance method, the whole point is to find its parents method.
If one does not supply arguments to super, its like the first argument passed in is the class of self, and the second argument passed in is self. These are auto-calculated for you in Python3.
However say we dont want to use Jack's method, instead of passing in Jack, we could of passed in Jen to start searching upwards for the method from Jen.
It searches one layer at a time (width not depth), e.g. if Adam and Sue both have the required method, the one from Sue will be found first.
If Cain and Sue both had the required method, Cain's method would be called first.
This corresponds in code to:
Class Jen(Cain, Sue):
MRO is from left to right.
In the case of multiple inheritance, you normally want to call the initializers of both parents, not just the first. Instead of always using the base class, super() finds the class that is next in Method Resolution Order (MRO), and returns the current object as an instance of that class. For example:
class Base(object):
def __init__(self):
print("initializing Base")
class ChildA(Base):
def __init__(self):
print("initializing ChildA")
Base.__init__(self)
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
print("initializing ChildB")
super().__init__()
class Grandchild(ChildA, ChildB):
def __init__(self):
print("initializing Grandchild")
super().__init__()
Grandchild()
results in
initializing Grandchild
initializing ChildA
initializing Base
Replacing Base.__init__(self) with super().__init__() results in
initializing Grandchild
initializing ChildA
initializing ChildB
initializing Base
as desired.
some great answers here, but they do not tackle how to use super() in the case where different classes in the hierarchy have different signatures ... especially in the case of __init__
to answer that part and to be able to effectively use super() i'd suggest reading my answer super() and changing the signature of cooperative methods.
here's just the solution to this scenario:
the top-level classes in your hierarchy must inherit from a custom class like SuperObject:
if classes can take differing arguments, always pass all arguments you received on to the super function as keyword arguments, and, always accept **kwargs.
class SuperObject:
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
print('SuperObject')
mro = type(self).__mro__
assert mro[-1] is object
if mro[-2] is not SuperObject:
raise TypeError(
'all top-level classes in this hierarchy must inherit from SuperObject',
'the last class in the MRO should be SuperObject',
f'mro={[cls.__name__ for cls in mro]}'
)
# super().__init__ is guaranteed to be object.__init__
init = super().__init__
init()
example usage:
class A(SuperObject):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
print("A")
super(A, self).__init__(**kwargs)
class B(SuperObject):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
print("B")
super(B, self).__init__(**kwargs)
class C(A):
def __init__(self, age, **kwargs):
print("C",f"age={age}")
super(C, self).__init__(age=age, **kwargs)
class D(B):
def __init__(self, name, **kwargs):
print("D", f"name={name}")
super(D, self).__init__(name=name, **kwargs)
class E(C,D):
def __init__(self, name, age, *args, **kwargs):
print( "E", f"name={name}", f"age={age}")
super(E, self).__init__(name=name, age=age, *args, **kwargs)
E(name='python', age=28)
output:
E name=python age=28
C age=28
A
D name=python
B
SuperObject
Consider the following code:
class X():
def __init__(self):
print("X")
class Y(X):
def __init__(self):
# X.__init__(self)
super(Y, self).__init__()
print("Y")
class P(X):
def __init__(self):
super(P, self).__init__()
print("P")
class Q(Y, P):
def __init__(self):
super(Q, self).__init__()
print("Q")
Q()
If change constructor of Y to X.__init__, you will get:
X
Y
Q
But using super(Y, self).__init__(), you will get:
X
P
Y
Q
And P or Q may even be involved from another file which you don't know when you writing X and Y. So, basically, you won't know what super(Child, self) will reference to when you are writing class Y(X), even the signature of Y is as simple as Y(X). That's why super could be a better choice.
class Child(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
SomeBaseClass.__init__(self)
This is fairly easy to understand.
class Child(SomeBaseClass):
def __init__(self):
super(Child, self).__init__()
Ok, what happens now if you use super(Child,self)?
When a Child instance is created, its MRO(Method Resolution Order) is in the order of (Child, SomeBaseClass, object) based on the inheritance. (assume SomeBaseClass doesn't have other parents except for the default object)
By passing Child, self, super searches in the MRO of the self instance, and return the proxy object next of Child, in this case it's SomeBaseClass, this object then invokes the __init__ method of SomeBaseClass. In other word, if it's super(SomeBaseClass,self), the proxy object that super returns would be object
For multi inheritance, the MRO could contain many classes, so basically super lets you decide where you want to start searching in the MRO.
This question already has answers here:
What does 'super' do in Python? - difference between super().__init__() and explicit superclass __init__()
(11 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
Why is super() used?
Is there a difference between using Base.__init__ and super().__init__?
class Base(object):
def __init__(self):
print "Base created"
class ChildA(Base):
def __init__(self):
Base.__init__(self)
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
super(ChildB, self).__init__()
ChildA()
ChildB()
super() lets you avoid referring to the base class explicitly, which can be nice. But the main advantage comes with multiple inheritance, where all sorts of fun stuff can happen. See the standard docs on super if you haven't already.
Note that the syntax changed in Python 3.0: you can just say super().__init__() instead of super(ChildB, self).__init__() which IMO is quite a bit nicer. The standard docs also refer to a guide to using super() which is quite explanatory.
I'm trying to understand super()
The reason we use super is so that child classes that may be using cooperative multiple inheritance will call the correct next parent class function in the Method Resolution Order (MRO).
In Python 3, we can call it like this:
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
In Python 2, we were required to call super like this with the defining class's name and self, but we'll avoid this from now on because it's redundant, slower (due to the name lookups), and more verbose (so update your Python if you haven't already!):
super(ChildB, self).__init__()
Without super, you are limited in your ability to use multiple inheritance because you hard-wire the next parent's call:
Base.__init__(self) # Avoid this.
I further explain below.
"What difference is there actually in this code?:"
class ChildA(Base):
def __init__(self):
Base.__init__(self)
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
The primary difference in this code is that in ChildB you get a layer of indirection in the __init__ with super, which uses the class in which it is defined to determine the next class's __init__ to look up in the MRO.
I illustrate this difference in an answer at the canonical question, How to use 'super' in Python?, which demonstrates dependency injection and cooperative multiple inheritance.
If Python didn't have super
Here's code that's actually closely equivalent to super (how it's implemented in C, minus some checking and fallback behavior, and translated to Python):
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
mro = type(self).mro()
check_next = mro.index(ChildB) + 1 # next after *this* class.
while check_next < len(mro):
next_class = mro[check_next]
if '__init__' in next_class.__dict__:
next_class.__init__(self)
break
check_next += 1
Written a little more like native Python:
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
mro = type(self).mro()
for next_class in mro[mro.index(ChildB) + 1:]: # slice to end
if hasattr(next_class, '__init__'):
next_class.__init__(self)
break
If we didn't have the super object, we'd have to write this manual code everywhere (or recreate it!) to ensure that we call the proper next method in the Method Resolution Order!
How does super do this in Python 3 without being told explicitly which class and instance from the method it was called from?
It gets the calling stack frame, and finds the class (implicitly stored as a local free variable, __class__, making the calling function a closure over the class) and the first argument to that function, which should be the instance or class that informs it which Method Resolution Order (MRO) to use.
Since it requires that first argument for the MRO, using super with static methods is impossible as they do not have access to the MRO of the class from which they are called.
Criticisms of other answers:
super() lets you avoid referring to the base class explicitly, which can be nice. . But the main advantage comes with multiple inheritance, where all sorts of fun stuff can happen. See the standard docs on super if you haven't already.
It's rather hand-wavey and doesn't tell us much, but the point of super is not to avoid writing the parent class. The point is to ensure that the next method in line in the method resolution order (MRO) is called. This becomes important in multiple inheritance.
I'll explain here.
class Base(object):
def __init__(self):
print("Base init'ed")
class ChildA(Base):
def __init__(self):
print("ChildA init'ed")
Base.__init__(self)
class ChildB(Base):
def __init__(self):
print("ChildB init'ed")
super().__init__()
And let's create a dependency that we want to be called after the Child:
class UserDependency(Base):
def __init__(self):
print("UserDependency init'ed")
super().__init__()
Now remember, ChildB uses super, ChildA does not:
class UserA(ChildA, UserDependency):
def __init__(self):
print("UserA init'ed")
super().__init__()
class UserB(ChildB, UserDependency):
def __init__(self):
print("UserB init'ed")
super().__init__()
And UserA does not call the UserDependency method:
>>> UserA()
UserA init'ed
ChildA init'ed
Base init'ed
<__main__.UserA object at 0x0000000003403BA8>
But UserB does in-fact call UserDependency because ChildB invokes super:
>>> UserB()
UserB init'ed
ChildB init'ed
UserDependency init'ed
Base init'ed
<__main__.UserB object at 0x0000000003403438>
Criticism for another answer
In no circumstance should you do the following, which another answer suggests, as you'll definitely get errors when you subclass ChildB:
super(self.__class__, self).__init__() # DON'T DO THIS! EVER.
(That answer is not clever or particularly interesting, but in spite of direct criticism in the comments and over 17 downvotes, the answerer persisted in suggesting it until a kind editor fixed his problem.)
Explanation: Using self.__class__ as a substitute for the class name in super() will lead to recursion. super lets us look up the next parent in the MRO (see the first section of this answer) for child classes. If you tell super we're in the child instance's method, it will then lookup the next method in line (probably this one) resulting in recursion, probably causing a logical failure (in the answerer's example, it does) or a RuntimeError when the recursion depth is exceeded.
>>> class Polygon(object):
... def __init__(self, id):
... self.id = id
...
>>> class Rectangle(Polygon):
... def __init__(self, id, width, height):
... super(self.__class__, self).__init__(id)
... self.shape = (width, height)
...
>>> class Square(Rectangle):
... pass
...
>>> Square('a', 10, 10)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 3, in __init__
TypeError: __init__() missing 2 required positional arguments: 'width' and 'height'
Python 3's new super() calling method with no arguments fortunately allows us to sidestep this issue.
It's been noted that in Python 3.0+ you can use
super().__init__()
to make your call, which is concise and does not require you to reference the parent OR class names explicitly, which can be handy. I just want to add that for Python 2.7 or under, some people implement a name-insensitive behaviour by writing self.__class__ instead of the class name, i.e.
super(self.__class__, self).__init__() # DON'T DO THIS!
HOWEVER, this breaks calls to super for any classes that inherit from your class, where self.__class__ could return a child class. For example:
class Polygon(object):
def __init__(self, id):
self.id = id
class Rectangle(Polygon):
def __init__(self, id, width, height):
super(self.__class__, self).__init__(id)
self.shape = (width, height)
class Square(Rectangle):
pass
Here I have a class Square, which is a sub-class of Rectangle. Say I don't want to write a separate constructor for Square because the constructor for Rectangle is good enough, but for whatever reason I want to implement a Square so I can reimplement some other method.
When I create a Square using mSquare = Square('a', 10,10), Python calls the constructor for Rectangle because I haven't given Square its own constructor. However, in the constructor for Rectangle, the call super(self.__class__,self) is going to return the superclass of mSquare, so it calls the constructor for Rectangle again. This is how the infinite loop happens, as was mentioned by #S_C. In this case, when I run super(...).__init__() I am calling the constructor for Rectangle but since I give it no arguments, I will get an error.
Super has no side effects
Base = ChildB
Base()
works as expected
Base = ChildA
Base()
gets into infinite recursion.
Just a heads up... with Python 2.7, and I believe ever since super() was introduced in version 2.2, you can only call super() if one of the parents inherit from a class that eventually inherits object (new-style classes).
Personally, as for python 2.7 code, I'm going to continue using BaseClassName.__init__(self, args) until I actually get the advantage of using super().
There isn't, really. super() looks at the next class in the MRO (method resolution order, accessed with cls.__mro__) to call the methods. Just calling the base __init__ calls the base __init__. As it happens, the MRO has exactly one item-- the base. So you're really doing the exact same thing, but in a nicer way with super() (particularly if you get into multiple inheritance later).
The main difference is that ChildA.__init__ will unconditionally call Base.__init__ whereas ChildB.__init__ will call __init__ in whatever class happens to be ChildB ancestor in self's line of ancestors
(which may differ from what you expect).
If you add a ClassC that uses multiple inheritance:
class Mixin(Base):
def __init__(self):
print "Mixin stuff"
super(Mixin, self).__init__()
class ChildC(ChildB, Mixin): # Mixin is now between ChildB and Base
pass
ChildC()
help(ChildC) # shows that the Method Resolution Order is ChildC->ChildB->Mixin->Base
then Base is no longer the parent of ChildB for ChildC instances. Now super(ChildB, self) will point to Mixin if self is a ChildC instance.
You have inserted Mixin in between ChildB and Base. And you can take advantage of it with super()
So if you are designed your classes so that they can be used in a Cooperative Multiple Inheritance scenario, you use super because you don't really know who is going to be the ancestor at runtime.
The super considered super post and pycon 2015 accompanying video explain this pretty well.