Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #22073 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmichel@sequans.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-03-23 15:19 +0100 |
| Last post | 2012-03-23 15:19 +0100 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Python classes: Simplify? Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmichel@sequans.com> - 2012-03-23 15:19 +0100
| From | Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmichel@sequans.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-23 15:19 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Python classes: Simplify? |
| Message-ID | <mailman.924.1332512488.3037.python-list@python.org> |
Steven Lehar wrote: > It seems to me that the Python class system is needlessly confusing. > Am I missing something? > > For example in the class Complex given in the documentation > > *class Complex:* > * def __init__(self, realpart, imagpart):* > * self.r = realpart* > * self.i = imagpart* > * > * > *x = Complex(3.0, -4.5)* > > I initially found it profoundly confusing that __init__( ) calls for 3 > arguments, but you call Complex( ) with 2. Furthermore, why not call > the initialization function after the class name as is done in other > languages? Isn't that the simplest conceptually? Demonstrating with > the above example: > In python, writting obj.method() will be translated into method(obj) so any instance method has a #arg + 1 arguments, something you'll get familiar with. Furthermore, Complex(3.0, -4.5) invokes 2 functions : __new__ and __init__. __new__ is the "constructor", this is the function that returns an instance. __init__ is an initializer, at the time it's called the instance already exists and is viable. > *class Complex:* > * def Complex(realpart, imagpart):* > * Complex.r = realpart* > * Complex.i = imagpart* > * > * > *x = Complex(3.0, -4.5)* > * > * > Is there a good reason why classes cannot be defined that way? > (Besides the problem of backward-compatibility) > Python uses a different data model, it is a very good idea to mark theses differences using an explicit distinct syntax so that people won't jump into false conclusions like "it's like C or Java". It is not. JM JM
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web