Random832 <random...@fastmail.com>:
> But from a class-definition perspective, __init__ is the one and only
> thing that should be called a constructor.
Not arguing agaist that, but from the *user's* perspective, I see the
class itself is the constructor function:
class C: pass
c = C()
You could say that the class statement in Python little else than
syntactic sugar for creating an object constructor.
For example, instead of:
import math
class Point:
def __init__(self, x, y):
self.x = x
self.y = y
def rotate(self, angle):
self.x, self.y = (
self.x * math.cos(angle) - self.y * math.sin(angle),
self.x * math.sin(angle) + self.y * math.cos(angle))
you could write:
import math, types
def Point(x, y):
def rotate(angle):
nonlocal x, y
x, y = (
x * math.cos(angle) - y * math.sin(angle),
x * math.sin(angle) + y * math.cos(angle))
return types.SimpleNamespace(rotate=rotate)
> The fact that many languages don't have any way to override object
> allocation, and therefore no analogue to __new__, also contributes to
> this conclusion.
I see no point in Python having __new__, either. In fact, I can see the
point in C++ but not in Python.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
