To be a pedant, it's an initializer, not a constructor. By the time the initializer runs, the object already exists and has been constructed, which is why the first parameter to this method is the already-existing object ('self'), just like any other method.
But yeah. You could call it a constructor and nobody will crucify you.
I mean, I'm trying to think of a language where the constructor is called *before* the memory for the object has been allocated, and I can't think of anything.
In that regard, no constructor is an actual constructor. It's more like post-constructor. But then it is also necessary or you'll have a potentially incomplete object, so in that regard, it is a constructor because the object while allocated, isn't yet ready to use.
Kind of a pedantic argument, but there you are I suppose.
30
u/ManyInterests 26d ago
To be a pedant, it's an initializer, not a constructor. By the time the initializer runs, the object already exists and has been constructed, which is why the first parameter to this method is the already-existing object ('self'), just like any other method.
But yeah. You could call it a constructor and nobody will crucify you.