__new__
being static method allows a use-case when you create an instance of a subclass in it:
return super(<currentclass>, cls).__new__(subcls, *args, **kwargs)
If new
is a class method then the above is written as:
return super(<currentclass>, cls).new(*args, **kwargs)
and there is no place to put subcls
.
I don't really see when that would be a proper use of __new__
, though. Maybe I'm not seeing it, but that just seems to me to be a completely pathological use of it (and it should be said, that if you still really want it, then you could access it with object.__new__.__func__
). At the very least, I find it very hard to imagine that it would have been the reason for Guido to change __new__
from being a class method to a static method.
A more common case would be to call parent __new__
without using super()
. You need a place to pass cls
explicitly in this case:
class Base(object):
@classmethod
def new(cls):
print("Base.new(%r)" % (cls,))
return cls()
class UseSuper(Base):
@classmethod
def new(cls):
print("UseSuper.new(%r)" % (cls,))
return super(UseSuper, cls).new() # passes cls as the first arg
class NoSuper(Base):
@classmethod
def new(cls):
print("NoSuper.new(%r)" % (cls,))
return Base.new() # passes Base as the first arg
class UseFunc(Base):
@classmethod
def new(cls):
print("UseFunc.new(%r)" % (cls,))
return Base.new.im_func(cls) # or `.__func__(cls)`. # passes cls as the first arg
print(UseSuper.new())
print('-'*60)
print(NoSuper.new())
print('-'*60)
print(UseFunc.new())
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…