A super() print will give you the whole super object reference:
So if a cube is a child of a square, if you call super() within cube you’ll get:
<super: <class 'Cube'>, <Cube object>>
instead of square. But it doesn’t mean that it’s referring to the cube.
To refer to the object directly you just have to type it’s name. I think the first example in the link I referenced talks about this.
As for the line about transposition, I’m talking about the DRY principle (don’t repeat yourself). If you have a code that can be written to apply to multiple situations, it’s better to write it that way than specifically for each situation.
For example, if I wanted to refer to super() in multiple classes, it’s better to use super() than to type the different names of all the super() references in each class. The benefit to do this is that in the future the class changes but has the same structure, the code won’t need to be adjusted. There may be cases where this is not necessary, or suggested, but they don’t come to mind right now.
@dev6112515278 yes that’s right. Python might not be a perfect language. But then again, what language is? I do appreciate that they try to maintain it in tidy shape. And there’s no shortage of knowledgeable people to clarify its more obscure areas.