On 1/31/2014 3:41 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
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?
Construct a house:
Clear and grade house site.
Bring in power and water.
Built temporary structures.
Built foundation.
Built house on foundation.
For most classes, __new__ stops with the foundation -- the bare object
object (with the class name slapped onto it). A *house* is not
constructed until the house is constructed on top of the foundation.
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__.
Right: __init__ usually does the stuff that makes the object an instance
of a particular class rather than just a bare bones object. In English,
constructing a 'something' includes constructing the features that make
the object a 'something' rather than something else.
Most classes have __init__, only very very few have __new__.
*Every* class has .__new__. Mutable builtins and almost all user classes
inherit .__new__ from object. Every class also has .__init__, but it is
mainly inherited from object by immutable builtins.
>>> tuple.__init__
<slot wrapper '__init__' of 'object' objects>
User classes lacking .__init__ usually inherit it from something other
than object. So objects are constructed by first calling .__new__ and
then passing the result to .__init__. The Python 3 doc should say so.
My problem is with the first sentence, as it makes it sound like there
is no __new__ and everything you need is in __init__.
.__new__ allocates a bare object and initializes immutable builtins.
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?
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
