I'm having a really strange problem with Python super() and inheritance and properties. First, the code:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import pyglet
import pygame
class Sprite(pyglet.sprite.Sprite):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
self.rect = pygame.Rect(0, 0, self.width, self.height)
self.rect.center = self.x, self.y
@property
def x(self):
return super().x
@x.setter
def x(self, value):
super(Sprite, self.__class__).x.fset(self, value)
self.rect.centerx = value
@property
def y(self):
return super().y
@y.setter
def y(self, value):
super(Sprite, self.__class__).y.fset(self, value)
self.rect.centery = value
This works fine. However, what I want (what seems Pythonic to me)
#super(Sprite, self.__class__).x.fset(self, value)
super().x = value
doesn't work even though
super().x
gets the value fine. x in this case is a property of the superclass with both fset and fget defined. So why doesn't it work?
I was trying to find the correct language to back up why this behavior is the way it is, so as not to give you a "because it just is" answer... But it seems this question has been asked more than once, and that it boils down to the behavior of super(). You can see a 2010 discussion about this exact behavior here: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-April/099672.html
Ultimately, it really does just come down to super() calls only letting you access getters directly, and not setters. Setters must be accessed via fset() or __set__(). It is probably easiest explained as "super() functionality just doesn't support it". It will resolve the property functionality of a "get" operation, not the setter in a left handed assignment, in the "set" operation (hence the fset() method call). As you can see from the date of this discussion thread, its obviously been this way since the introduction of super().
Maybe someone else has a more specifically technical reason, but frankly I'm not sure it even matters. If its not supported, thats pretty much a good enough reason.