constructor overwrite

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Mug a écrit :
> hi ,i had a problem on constructor overwrite:
> i have something like:
> 
> class obj:
> def __init__(self, x=100, y=None):
>     if y is None:
>           self.x=x
>     else:
>           self.y=y

With such an initializer, you'll have instances with an attribute 'y' 
and no attribute 'x', and instances with an attribute 'x' and no 
attribute 'y' :

 >>> class Obj(object):
...     def __init__(self, x=100, y=None):
...         if y is None: self.x = x
...         else: self.y = y
...
 >>> objx = Obj()
 >>> objx.x
100
 >>> objx.y
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "<console>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: 'Obj' object has no attribute 'y'
 >>> objy = Obj(y='foo')
 >>> objy.x
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "<console>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: 'Obj' object has no attribute 'x'
 >>> objy.y
'foo'
 >>>


Are you *sure* this is what you want ?

> so i can call :
> objet = obj()  # x=100 y=None
> or
> objet = obj(40) # x= 40 y=None
> 
> but if i do :
> objet = obj('not cool') #x='not cool' y=None

What else would you expect ???

> since x is not typed .

'x' is a name, and names are indeed "untyped". Now the object bound to 
name 'x' is actually typed.

> i am waiting for a result:
> objet = obj('not cool') #x=100 y='not cool'
> as they do in C++ or java.

Python is neither C++ nor Java (nor Pascal nor Lisp nor 
<yourfavoritelanguagehere> FWIW), so trying to forcefit C++/Java idioms 
will at best lead you to pain and frustation. Just like trying to 
forcefit Python idioms in C++ or Java (or Pascal or Lisp etc....).

> is there a way to do it?

objet = obj(y='not cool')

Now if you could explain the problem you're trying to solve instead of 
the solution you thought would solve it, we might eventually provide 
more help.