OOP / language design question

[Carl Banks]

Re: OOP / language design question


Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <1145969107.837 185.212970@e56g 2000cwe.googleg roups.com>,
> "Carl Banks" <invalidemail@a erojockey.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >bruno at modulix wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> cctv.star@gmail .com 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>[/color]
> >
> >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).[/color]
>
> "Constructo r" is also the term used for the corresponding method in Java.
>
> Is there any OO language that does not use "constructo r" in this sense?
> I don't think there is one. This is standard OO terminology.[/color]

Python?

Yeah, I realize it's common terminology, but I just think it's a poor
name. That Python doesn't really call __init__ a constructor is good
(I guess it doesn't really call it anything but __init__), because
constructor would be a bad name for it.


Carl Banks

[bruno at modulix]

Re: OOP / language design question

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <1145969107.837 185.212970@e56g 2000cwe.googleg roups.com>,
> "Carl Banks" <invalidemail@a erojockey.com> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>bruno at modulix wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>cctv.star@gm ail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was wondering, why you always have to remember to call bases'
>>>>constructor s
>>>
>>><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>[/color]
>>
>>You know, Python's __init__ has almost the same semantics as C++
>>constructor s (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
>>initializer s (and destructors finalizers).[/color]
>
>
> "Constructo r" is also the term used for the corresponding method in Java.
>
> Is there any OO language that does not use "constructo r" in this sense?[/color]

Smalltalk. Just like Python, it has constructor *and* initializer.
[color=blue]
> I don't think there is one. This is standard OO terminology.[/color]

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 'onurb@xiludom. gro'.split('@')])"