Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
To: python-list@python.org
From: Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>
Subject: Re: __init__ is the initialiser
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:28:02 -0500
References: <lcgtpf$tui$1@ger.gmane.org> <lcgut2$b8r$1@ger.gmane.org> <52EC0A86.7060102@stoneleaf.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
In-Reply-To: <52EC0A86.7060102@stoneleaf.us>
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.6243.1391221704.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 73
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:65165

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 t=
o
>>> the class constructor expression. If a base class has an __init__()
>>> method, the derived class=E2=80=99s __init__() method, if any, must e=
xplicitly
>>> call it to ensure proper initialization of the base class part of the=

>>> instance; for example: BaseClass.__init__(self, [args...]). As a spec=
ial
>>> 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=20
object (with the class name slapped onto it). A *house* is not=20
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,=20
constructing a 'something' includes constructing the features that make=20
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=20
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=20
than object. So objects are constructed by first calling .__new__ and=20
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__.

=2E__new__ allocates a bare object and initializes immutable builtins.

   Figuring out how
> __new__ and __init__ were tied together took a long time because of tha=
t.
>
>> Why can't we call __init__ the constructor and __new__ the allocator?

--=20
Terry Jan Reedy