Groups > comp.lang.python > #22027

Re: Python classes: Simplify?

From	Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com>
Subject	Re: Python classes: Simplify?
Date	2012-03-22 10:55 -0400
Organization	> Bestiaria Support Staff <
References	<CAKz-UDNFpHF=2secHaFJ2M7LKAD4XtLLrqmE3uo1A6YVXH1zTg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZYqRRRLBgLQkeFh=5cpJepUUwY8X+2TBJiwh8GDT2wZrKtuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.892.1332428179.3037.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:17:35 -0700, Chris Rebert <clp2@rebertia.com>
declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:

> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Steven Lehar <slehar@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Furthermore, why not call the
> > initialization function after the class name as is done in other languages?
> 
> Yech. That would add another step to renaming a class and make
> referring to the superclass initializer method rather difficult. It
> would also break the "all special methods have underscored names"
> rule.
>

	Not to mention the dangling consideration of what to do with the
real constructor: __new__()
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
        wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Python classes: Simplify? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-03-22 10:55 -0400

csiph-web