On 29/12/19 2:19 PM, Tim Chase wrote:
On 2019-12-29 12:52, Greg Ewing wrote:
I tend to do this too, although it's probably just a habit
carried over from languages such as Pascal and C where you
have to go out of your way to get things in a different
order.
Apparently I'm not alone in my Pascal/C-derived habits of
define-before-use.
I didn't expect to be the only one who would bring 'prior experience'
into it...
Inside a class, I tend to roughly follow
__new__ (if present)
__init__
other dunder methods
subsequent methods alphabetically
+1
Should __new__() and __init__() break with convention because its/their
method/function signature is (really) part of the class's signature, and
thus there's a need for proximity?
(aka is "expected")
--
Regards =dn
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
