Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Carl Banks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>bruno at modulix wrote:
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was wondering, why you always have to remember to call bases'
>>>>constructors
>>>
>>><pedantic>
>>>s/constructors/__init__/
>>>
>>>the __init__() method is *not* the constructor. Object's instanciation
>>>is a two-stage process: __new__() is called first, then __init__().
>>></pedantic>
>>
>>You know, Python's __init__ has almost the same semantics as C++
>>constructors (they both initialize something that's already been
>>allocated in memory, and neither can return a substitute object). I
>>actually think constructors are misnamed in C++, they should be called
>>initializers (and destructors finalizers).
>
>
> "Constructor" is also the term used for the corresponding method in Java.
>
> Is there any OO language that does not use "constructor" in this sense?
Smalltalk. Just like Python, it has constructor *and* initializer.
> I don't think there is one. This is standard OO terminology.
Being "standard" doesn't imply it's accurate.
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.split('@')])"
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
