In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Carl Banks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>bruno at modulix wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > I was wondering, why you always have to remember to call bases' >> > constructors >> >> <pedantic> >> s/constructors/__init__/ >> >> the __init__() method is *not* the constructor. Object's instanciation >> is a two-stage process: __new__() is called first, then __init__(). >> </pedantic> > >You know, Python's __init__ has almost the same semantics as C++ >constructors (they both initialize something that's already been >allocated in memory, and neither can return a substitute object). I >actually think constructors are misnamed in C++, they should be called >initializers (and destructors finalizers). "Constructor" is also the term used for the corresponding method in Java. Is there any OO language that does not use "constructor" in this sense? I don't think there is one. This is standard OO terminology. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list