On 01/31/2014 11:52 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
On 1/31/14 2:33 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
From http://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#object.__init__
which states:-
"
Called when the instance is created. The arguments are those passed to
the class constructor expression. If a base class has an __init__()
method, the derived class’s __init__() method, if any, must explicitly
call it to ensure proper initialization of the base class part of the
instance; for example: BaseClass.__init__(self, [args...]). As a special
constraint on constructors, no value may be returned; doing so will
cause a TypeError to be raised at runtime.
"
Should the wording of the above be changed to clearly reflect that we
have an initialiser here and that __new__ is the constructor?
I'm torn about that. The fact is, that for 95% of the reasons you want to say
"constructor", the thing you're
describing is __init__. Most classes have __init__, only very very few have
__new__.
My problem is with the first sentence, as it makes it sound like there is no __new__ and everything you need is in
__init__. Figuring out how __new__ and __init__ were tied together took a long time because of that.
Why can't we call __init__ the constructor and __new__ the allocator?
I'm not so much concerned about the names (although I like those names ;) as I am about the prose. If that first line
was something like:
Called after the instance has been created but before it is returned.
I think that would be much clearer.
--
~Ethan~
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
