Alternative constructors naming convention

[Will McGugan]

Hi,

Is there a naming convention regarding alternative constructors? ie
static methods where __new__ is called explicity. I use lower_case for
methods in general, but thought maybe CamelCase would be better for
alternative contstructors to distinguish them from methods...

So which is better?

c = Color.FromHtml(r, g, b)

c = Color.from_html(r, g, b)


Will McGugan

 

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Hi,

Is there a naming convention regarding alternative constructors? ie
static methods where __new__ is called explicity. I use lower_case for
methods in general, but thought maybe CamelCase would be better for
alternative contstructors to distinguish them from methods...

Well... They are still methods, aren't they ?-)

I don't remember any specific guideline, but FWIW, dict.from_keys() is
an "alternative constructor".

My 2 cents.

 

[Steven Bethard]

Is there a naming convention regarding alternative constructors? ie
static methods where __new__ is called explicity.

Are you really using staticmethod and calling __new__? It's often much
easier to use classmethod, e.g.::

class Color(object):
...
@classmethod
def from_html(cls, r, g, b):
...
# convert r, g, b to normal constructor args
...
# call normal constructor
return cls(...)

And FWIW, I use lower_with_underscores for alternate constructors, not
CamelCase.

STeVe

 

[Will McGugan]

Are you really using staticmethod and calling __new__? It's often much
easier to use classmethod, e.g.::

class Color(object):
...
@classmethod
def from_html(cls, r, g, b):
...
# convert r, g, b to normal constructor args
...
# call normal constructor
return cls(...)

I could use that for some things, but often I can avoid an intermediate
step by bypassing the class constructor altogether...

And FWIW, I use lower_with_underscores for alternate constructors, not
CamelCase.

Seems to be the consensus. I think I'll stick_to_it!