Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > 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?
Smalltalk. Just like Python, it has constructor *and* initializer. > I don't think there is one. This is standard OO terminology. Being "standard" doesn't imply it's accurate. -- bruno desthuilliers python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for p in '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.split('@')])" -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list