__init__ not a "constructor" ?

[Kirby Urner]

I notice the author of the Dive Into Python tutorial cautions
that __init__ is not trully a class constructor, as by the time
it's invoked, an instance already exists (hence the argument
'self', hence the fact that classes don't need an __init__
method).

I'm wondering if it's therefore considered faux pax to refer to
the constructor of a Python user-defined class, meaning __init__,
or if there's some tacit liberalizing of "constructor" (it's meaning)
going on, such that this usage is acceptable.

Any feedback useful.  CC: urner at alumni.princeton.edu please.

Kirby

PS:  I should check the official Python docs to see if "constructor"
terminology is used.  I'll do that next.