On 21 Aug, 14:21, Hussein B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you have a huge class, you can't figure the instance variables of > each object. > So, I created this constructor: > -- > def __init__(self): > self.speed = None > self.brand = None > -- > This way, I can figure the instance variables by just reading the > __init__ method. > What do you think of my approach? is it considered Pythonic?
I don't like to use the term "Pythonic", but I think it's reasonable to initialise the attributes in this way. In effect, what you're doing is to ensure that the attributes have some well-defined state at each point in the lifetime of the instance, and I find myself doing this a lot. My __init__ methods typically consist of any calls to superclass __init__ methods followed by the explicit initialisation of any additional attributes defined for the instance in the class. Some people might advocate not bothering defining the attributes until they are actually set with some value, but then you have to deal with situations where the attributes are missing. Generally, handling missing attributes isn't worth the bother unless you have a large number of attributes which could only *potentially* be present: a situation which occurs when wrapping "foreign" libraries, for example, where properties or use of __getattr__ seem more essential than the luxury they might otherwise appear to be. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
