Re: Dunder [was Re: __init__ is the initialiser]

2014-01-31 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:05:34 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Steven D'Aprano > wrote: >> "Constructor" is three syllables; "ctor" isn't readily pronounceable in >> English at all, rather like Cthulhu. (I can't think of any standard >> English words with a "CT" in th

Re: Dunder [was Re: __init__ is the initialiser]

2014-01-31 Thread Chris Angelico
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > "Constructor" is three syllables; "ctor" isn't readily pronounceable in > English at all, rather like Cthulhu. (I can't think of any standard > English words with a "CT" in them at all, let alone at the start of the > word). The best I can c

Re: Dunder [was Re: __init__ is the initialiser]

2014-01-31 Thread MRAB
On 2014-02-01 02:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:10:46 -0500, Roy Smith wrote: In article , Ethan Furman wrote: I found calling __init__ the constructor very confusing. I've heard many people say this, and it's always sort of befuddled me. In C++, a constructor is reall

Dunder [was Re: __init__ is the initialiser]

2014-01-31 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:10:46 -0500, Roy Smith wrote: > In article , > Ethan Furman wrote: > >> I found calling __init__ the constructor very confusing. > > I've heard many people say this, and it's always sort of befuddled me. > > In C++, a constructor is really an initializer too. By the ti