问题
I wonder if can I say that a constructor is a special case of a method?
回答1:
You can say anything. Whether anyone will disagree with you depends on the context. Some language communities and standards define things that way.
More elaborately, it depends on what you mean by a 'method.' In C++, for example, one way to analyze the creation process is to say that it consists of a call to an operator new (perhaps just placement) followed by a call to a constructor method. From an implementation standpoint, a constructor looks, walks, and quacks like a method. In some compilers, you can even invoke one explicitly.
From a more theoretical viewpoint, someone might claim that constructors are some distinctive species. However, there is no single, true, privileged conceptual model of methods, constructors, or purple unicorns.
Gosh this is all subjective.
回答2:
You could say so, just as you can say that a human is a special case of animal, however in most contexts mentioning animals implies non-human animals and mentioning methods implies non-constructor methods.
回答3:
Technically, a constructor usually is a method. Whether it really is or is not depends largely on the particular environment. For example, in .NET constructors are methods called actually after an object is created. However, it's also possible to create an object without having a constructor called right after.
Update: Regarding .NET, or the Common Language Infrastructure to be more precise, ECMA 335, section 8.9.6.6 Constructors states:
New values of an object type are created via constructors. Constructors shall be instance methods, defined via a special form of method contract, which defines the method contract as a constructor for a particular object type.
回答4:
I think a constructor is too special to be called a method
- It doesn't return anything
- It modifies the object before the object is initialized
- It cannot call itself (imagine that)
blah blah blah
There might be difference between languages, but I don't think I'm going as far as calling a constructor "special method".
回答5:
In languages that have constructors, you can usually think of a constructor as a special case of a factory method. (Note: I don't mean the GoF Factory Method Software Design Pattern, I'm just talking about any class method that creates new instances.) Usually, this "special casing" generally takes the form of annoying restrictions (e.g. in Java, you can only call the parent constructor at the beginning of the constructor), which is why even in languages that do have constructors, you often end up using or writing factory methods anyway.
So, if constructors are basically factory methods with restrictions, there is really no need to have them both, and thus many languages simply get rid of constructors. Examples include Objective-C, Ruby, Smalltalk, Self, Newspeak, ECMAScript/JavaScript, Io, Ioke, Seph and many others.
In Ruby, the closest thing to a constructor is the method Class#allocate, which simply allocates an empty object and sets that object's class pointer. Nothing more. Since such an empty object is obviously unusable, it needs to initialized. Per convention, this initialization is performed by #initialize. As a convenience, because it is cumbersome to always have to remember to both allocate and initialize (as any Objective-C developer can probably attest), there is a helper method called Class#new, which looks something like this:
class Class
def new(*args, &block)
obj = allocate
obj.initialize(*args, &block)
return obj
end
end
This allows you to replace this:
foo = Foo.allocate
foo.initialize(bar)
With this:
foo = Foo.new(bar)
It is important to note that there is nothing special about any of these methods. Well, with one exception: Class#allocate obviously has to be able to set the class pointer and to allocate memory, which is something that is not possible in Ruby. So, this method has to somehow come from outside the system, which e.g. in MRI means that it is written in C, not Ruby. But that only concerns the implementation. There are no special dispatch rules, no special override rules. It's just a method like any other that can e.g. call super whereever, whenever and how often it wants and can return what it wants.
回答6:
"Special" is the magic word here. There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling a constructor a special method, but what "special" implies can vary depending on the language.
In most cases, "special" means they can't return values or be called as a method without creating a new object. But there are always exceptions: a prime example is JavaScript, where a constructor is no different from a normal function, it can return its own values and it can be called either as a constructor or as a simple function.
回答7:
At least in vb.net, constructors can have a non-standard control flow. If the first statement of a constructor is a call to New (of either the same type or a base type), the sequence of events will be: (1) perform the call; (2) initialize all the fields associated with the type; (3) finish handling the rest of the constructor. No normal method has that sort of control flow. This control flow makes it possible to do things like pass constructor parameters to field initializers of a derived type, if the base type is written to allow such.
回答8:
@Tom Brito, personally I would agree with you that a constructor is a special case of method.
Also, see below:
A constructor in a class is a special type of subroutine called at the creation of an object.
... A constructor resembles an instance method, but it differs from a method in that it never has an explicit return-type...
Source: Wikipedia
Also, you may read my comments on others' comment (woot4moo, phunehehe).
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3646461/can-i-say-a-constructor-is-a-method