Re: Why require __init__ to return None?
Sat, 28 May 1994 00:43:18 +0200

> I was thinking of the same thing. I would like to solve it in another
> way, by introducing the operator __call__ for instances.

This is indeed a useful extension. I might add it sooner or later
-- sooner if someone contributes a working patch!
> I might imagine that __init__ returns None or self. If it returns self,
> that means construction was ok. If it is None, construction failed.

Not needed -- you can raise an exception.

--Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam <>
URL: <>