On 15-02-13, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> Interesting: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5490824/should-constructors-comply-with-the-liskov-substitution-principle
You'd better believe I read that thread not 20 minutes ago. :)
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Isaac Schwabacher <alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com <ischwabacher at wisc.edu')" target="1">ischwabacher at wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 15-02-13, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > Are you willing to wait 10 days for an answer? I'm out of round tuits for a while.
> >
> > IIUC, the argument is that the Liskov Substitution Principle is a statement about how objects of a subtype behave relative to objects of a supertype, and it doesn't apply to constructors because they aren't behaviors of existing objects. So other overriding methods *should* be able to handle the same inputs that the respective overridden methods do, but constructors don't need to. Even though __init__ is written as an instance method, it seems like it's "morally" a part of the class method __new__ that's only split off for convenience.
> >
> > If this message is unclear, it's because I don't really understand this myself and I'm trying to articulate my best understanding of what's been said on this thread and those it links to.
> >
> > ijs
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Alexander Belopolsky <http://bugs.python.org/issue2267#msg125979(javascript:main.compose('new', 't=alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com>(java_script:main.compose()> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com <alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com>(java_script:main.compose()> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> FWIW you're wrong when you claim that "a constructor is no different from any other method". Someone else should probably explain this (it's an old argument that's been thoroughly settled).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, the best answer I've got in the past [1] was "ask on python-dev since Guido called the operator overriding expectation." :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And let me repost this bit of history [1]:
> > > >
> > > > Here is the annotated pre-r82065 code:
> > > >
> > > > 39876 gvanrossum def __add__(self, other):
> > > > 39876 gvanrossum if isinstance(other, timedelta):
> > > > 39928 gvanrossum return self.__class__(self.__days + other.__days,
> > > > 39876 gvanrossum self.__seconds + other.__seconds,
> > > > 39876 gvanrossum self.__microseconds + other.__microseconds)
> > > > 40207 tim_one return NotImplemented
> > > > 39876 gvanrossum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido(http://python.org/~guido)(http://python.org/~guido(http://python.org/~guido)))
> > _______________________________________________
> > Python-Dev mailing list
> > Python-Dev at python.org <Python-Dev at python.org>
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/mistersheik%40gmail.com
> >
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4