Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #65145
| From | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: __init__ is the initialiser |
| Date | 2014-01-31 17:44 -0500 |
| References | <lcgtpf$tui$1@ger.gmane.org> <lcgut2$b8r$1@ger.gmane.org> <52EC0C0A.7010508@mrabarnett.plus.com> <52EC0E3C.5070900@stoneleaf.us> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.6225.1391208282.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 1/31/14 3:57 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 01/31/2014 12:48 PM, MRAB wrote: >> On 2014-01-31 19:52, Ned Batchelder wrote: >>> >>> Why can't we call __init__ the constructor and __new__ the allocator? >> >> The advantage of calling it the "initialiser" is that it explains why >> it's called "__init__". > > Hm, yes, good point. Also, __init__ initializes so it is a good > choice. Ignore the names comment in my previous post. These days, when teaching Python, I'd say, "__init__ is an initializer, or constructor." -- Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: __init__ is the initialiser Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-01-31 17:44 -0500
csiph-web