Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So while it's true that __init__ is the closest equivalent to what > C++ and Java (and possibly a couple "other languages") call a > constructor, it doesn't imply that you should refer to it as "the > constructor". As Neil Cerutti points out, there's in fact nothing > like a 'constructor method' in Python : there are a "__new__" > method, an "__init__" method, and "constructor expressions" which > may invoke them !-)
I agree with this. The poster I was responding to called __init__ "akin to a constructor", which (to me) implied connection to other languages, not aspiration to define __init__ as THE constructor. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
