In article <[email protected]>, Chris Angelico <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Roy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > I suppose, if I had a class like this, I would write a factory function > > which called the constructor and post-construction initializer. And > > then I would make the constructor protected. > > That sounds like a reasonable plan, with the possible exception of > protected. Since meeting Python, I've stopped using private and > protected anywhere. > > ChrisA Each language has its own set of best practices. Trying to write C++ code using Python patterns is as bad as trying to write Python code using C++ patterns. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
