On Jan 16, 5:34 am, "Reedick, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >From the base definition of a constructor: constructor is the creator
> > of an object. In this case, __new__ is technically the constructor
> > while __init__ is an initializer.
>
> > However, it is also to be noted that __init_
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:02:43 -0800, Lie wrote:
> I've been in this Python mailing list for a few days, and I've noticed
> several things here: There are too many fundamentalist!
>
> Don't play stupid and all, don't be a fundamentalist. It might be true
> that __init__ isn't a constructor and __ne
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:python-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lie
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:03 PM
> To: python-list@python.org
> Subject: Re: __init__ explanation please
>
> I've been in this Python mailing list for
I've been in this Python mailing list for a few days, and I've noticed
several things here: There are too many fundamentalist!
Don't play stupid and all, don't be a fundamentalist. It might be true
that __init__ isn't a constructor and __new__ might be the constructor
(some people even claimed __n
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
Hrvoje Niksic a écrit :
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Wildemar Wildenburger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
__init__() /initializes/ an instance (automatically after
creation). It is called, /after/ the instance has been constr
Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> __init__ *is* the closest equivalent to what other languages
> >> would call a constructor.
> >
> > No. That would be '__new__', which actually constructs the
>
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:00:45 +0100, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Wildemar Wildenburger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> > __init__() /initializes/ an instance (automatically after creation).
>>> > It is called,
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Wildemar Wildenburger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > __init__() /initializes/ an instance (automatically after
>> > creation). It is called, /after/ the instance has been constructed
>>
>> I don't understand
Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wildemar Wildenburger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > __init__() /initializes/ an instance (automatically after
> > creation). It is called, /after/ the instance has been constructed
>
> I don't understand the purpose of this "correction". After all,
>
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:18:44 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> What one is "in reality" calling is the '__new__' method of the Person
> class. That function, in turn, is creating a new Person instance, and
> calling the '__init__' method of the newly-created instance. Finally,
> the '__new__' method retu
"Reedick, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Only if by "construct" you mean "allocate". __init__ starts out
>> with an empty object and brings it to a valid state, therefore
>> "constructing" the object you end up with. That operation is
>> exactly what other languages call a constructor.
>
On Jan 14, 2008 12:08 PM, Reedick, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:python-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hrvoje Niksic
> > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:29 AM
> > Only if by "construct" you mean "allocate". __init__ star
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:python-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hrvoje Niksic
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:29 AM
> To: python-list@python.org
> Subject: Re: __init__ explanation please
>
> Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ
Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't understand the purpose of this "correction". After all,
>> __init__ *is* the closest equivalent to what other languages would
>> call a constructor.
>
> Nevertheless, __init__ doesn't construct anything.
Only if by "construct" you mean "allocate". __
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Wildemar Wildenburger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
>>> To restate it more correctly: __init__ is akin to a constructor.
>>>
>> No. See Hrvoje Niksic's reply (and Ben Finney's to which it was a
>> reply).
>>
>> __init__() /initializes/
Wildemar Wildenburger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
>> To restate it more correctly: __init__ is akin to a constructor.
>>
> No. See Hrvoje Niksic's reply (and Ben Finney's to which it was a
> reply).
>
> __init__() /initializes/ an instance (automatically afte
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> To restate it more correctly: __init__ is akin to a constructor.
>
No. See Hrvoje Niksic's reply (and Ben Finney's to which it was a reply).
__init__() /initializes/ an instance (automatically after creation). It
is called, /after/ the instance has been con
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What one is "in reality" calling is the '__new__' method of the Person
> class. That function, in turn, is creating a new Person instance, and
> calling the '__init__' method of the newly-created instance. Finally,
> the '__new__' method returns that insta
-On [20080113 14:03], Ben Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>That's getting the two of them confused. __new__ is a constructor,
>__init__ is not.
And there I just sent an email stating the wrong thing.
I'll dig into it again, because I am really confusing something here (and
jumping between 4 lan
-On [20080113 13:36], Fredrik Lundh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>given that they do different things, I'm not sure it's that helpful to
>describe them *both* as constructors.
I am still behind in my learning. ;)
To restate it more correctly: __init__ is akin to a constructor.
I am not entirely s
"A.T.Hofkamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> while you think you are doing "Person('me', 'here', 31)", you are in
> reality executing "Person.__init__(self, 'me', 'here', 31)", where
> 'self' is refers to a shiny new, empty object created for you.
This is misleading, and founders on many discrepan
On 2008-01-13, Erik Lind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm new to Python, and OOP. I've read most of Mark Lutz's book and more
> online and can write simple modules, but I still don't get when __init__
> needs to be used as opposed to creating a class instance by assignment. For
> some strange re
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -On [20080113 01:41], Erik Lind ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >I'm new to Python, and OOP. I've read most of Mark Lutz's book and
> >more online and can write simple modules, but I still don't get
> >when __init__ needs to be used as oppos
Erik Lind wrote:
> I'm new to Python, and OOP. I've read most of Mark Lutz's book and more
> online and can write simple modules, but I still don't get when __init__
> needs to be used as opposed to creating a class instance by assignment.
nothing is ever created by plain assignment in Python;
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> I personally tend to see __init__ or __new__ as equivalent to what other
> languages call a constructor.
>
> (And I am sure some people might disagree with that. ;))
given that they do different things, I'm not sure it's that helpful to
describe them *both
-On [20080113 01:41], Erik Lind ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>I'm new to Python, and OOP. I've read most of Mark Lutz's book and more
>online and can write simple modules, but I still don't get when __init__
>needs to be used as opposed to creating a class instance by assignment.
I personally tend
Please keep discussion on the list..
> > I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly but maybe this will
> > help:
> >
> > If you want code to be run upon creating an instance of your class you
> > would use __init__. Most common examples include setting attributes on
> > the instance
Erik Lind wrote:
> I'm new to Python, and OOP. I've read most of Mark Lutz's book and more
> online and can write simple modules, but I still don't get when __init__
> needs to be used as opposed to creating a class instance by assignment. For
> some strange reason the literature seems to take t
> I'm new to Python, and OOP. I've read most of Mark Lutz's book and more
> online and can write simple modules, but I still don't get when __init__
> needs to be used as opposed to creating a class instance by assignment. For
> some strange reason the literature seems to take this for granted. I'd
I'm new to Python, and OOP. I've read most of Mark Lutz's book and more
online and can write simple modules, but I still don't get when __init__
needs to be used as opposed to creating a class instance by assignment. For
some strange reason the literature seems to take this for granted. I'd
app
31 matches
Mail list logo
