[CmdrKrool]

In the case of multiple base classes wouldn't it be more sensible for the derived class to forego the lexical convenience of super() and simply call each base explicitly? i.e.

        BaseEstimator.__init__(self, **kwargs)
        ServingMixin.__init__(self, **kwargs)

If one wants to inherit from multiple classes then they should be responsible for specifying the details of how that happens. Why should a base class be expected to add boilerplate just in case some external consumer comes along and wants to use it in some unforeseeable context?

That super() has a "method resolution order" seems like a fudge. Now 'super' doesn't necessarily mean 'superclass' anymore at the point of use. Am I missing some other hypothetical situation in which super()'s MRO brings more value for the price of having to know about this extra, implicit behaviour?

And what's funny is that in the example given, the first base class not calling super() leads to the bad consequence that the other base class doesn't get to set some internal state (self.mode). Yet in the next section, "When to use a Mixin", it advises: "A mixin is a class that [...] does not contain state"

[DHRicoF]

I could try to answer myself, but this will be far better that I could express in english:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiOglTERPEo